ArticleRevista brasileira de ortopedia2025
Mobile-Bearing versus Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparative Analysis of Long-Term Clinical and Implant Survival Outcomes.
Article in Revista brasileira de ortopedia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The present study compared clinical outcomes, implant survival, and axial mobility between mobile-bearing (MB) and fixed-bearing (FB) prostheses in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of 1,289 patients who underwent primary cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from 2003 to 2022 was conducted. Mobile-bearing prostheses were used in 820 patients (mean follow-up: 8.1 years), and FB in 469 patients (mean follow-up: 15.2 years). Functional outcomes were assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Kujala scores. Range of motion and axial tibial rotation were clinically evaluated. Statistical tests included analysis of variance, Results: Both groups showed significant functional improvement ( Conclusion: Mobile-bearing and FB designs offer durable functional benefits. Although MB provided greater axial mobility, it did not result in superior functional outcomes or implant longevity. Prosthesis selection should be tailored to individual patient needs, surgeon preference, and cost. Further prospective studies are needed to define the clinical relevance of enhanced kinematics.
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.