ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty does not lead to better joint awareness compared to fixed bearing design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty does not lead to better joint awareness compared to fixed bearing design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Offers More Natural Feeling Joints Compared with Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JB & JS open accessReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (MB-TKA) and fixed-bearing (FB) TKA are both widely used, with MB-TKA theoretically offering better functional outcomes due to its natural kinematics. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare joint awareness between MB-TKA and FB-TKA, as measured by Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), to provide insights into patient-perceived outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major databases following PRISMA guidelines, without date or language restrictions. Studies focusing on TKA with MB or FB as the intervention and control groups, respectively, and reporting on FJS-12 were included. The selection process involved two independent reviewers. Data extraction was carried out using a structured checklist and assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The meta-analysis employed Hedge's Results: Six studies, including two randomized clinical trials and four cohort studies with 731 participants and mean follow-up of 5.4 years, met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in FJS-12 between MB and FB TKA (pooled difference = 0.132, 95% confidence interval: -0.103 to 0.367, Conclusion: MB-TKA does not provide superior patient-perceived outcomes in terms of joint awareness compared to FB-TKA. This suggests that the clinical advantage of MB-TKA in terms of joint awareness is likely negligible. Therefore, the choice between MB and FB TKA should be based on other considerations, such as surgeon preference, implant cost and individual patient needs. Level of Evidence: Level III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.