No differences in clinical outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing computer-assisted total knee arthroplasties and no correlations between navigation data and clinical scores

Carlos J Marques, Sandra Daniel, Anusch Sufi-Siavach, Frank Lampe, Carlos J Marques, Sandra Daniel, Anusch Sufi-Siavach, Frank Lampe

Abstract

Purpose: The theoretical advantages of mobile-bearing (MB) designs over the conventional fixed bearings (FBs) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been proved yet through clinical studies. The aim of the study was to test whether the MB design has advantages in terms of better clinical outcomes when compared to FB. Furthermore, the relationships between intra-operative obtained implant positioning data and the clinical scores were analysed.

Methods: A total of 99 patients were randomized into the FB or the MB group. All patients received the same posterior cruciate retaining implants and were operated with the use of a computer-assisted navigation system. The clinical outcomes of both groups were compared pre-operatively, at 1 year, and at a mean follow-up time of 4 years after surgery.

Results: The MB implants showed no advantages over the FB when comparing the Knee Society Scores, the Oxford Score, the range of movement (ROM) and pain intensity of the patients in both groups at 1 and 4 years after surgery. There were no relationships between the computer navigation data and the clinical scores.

Conclusions: In view of the 4-year results, there is no evidence to support the recommendation of one design over the other in terms of better clinical outcome scores, higher ROM or lower pain rates. Long-term follow-up results may be necessary, including survival rates. Further research comparing different TKA designs should also include standardized performance-based tests.

Level of evidence: Prospective study (Randomized controlled trial with adequate statistical power to detect differences), Level I.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00822640.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Patient flow diagram according to the CONSORT statement. There is neither available data on the number of patients assessed nor on the number of patients excluded and their exclusion reasons
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
a KSS-Pain for the FB and MB groups across the measurement times (pre-operatively and at 1 and 4 years). b KSS-Stairs for the FB and MB groups across the measurement times (pre-operatively and at 1 and 4 years)

References

    1. Aggarwal AK, Agrawal A. Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon: a 4- to 6.5-year randomized, prospective, controlled, double-blinded study. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(10):1712–1716. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.003.
    1. Alentorn-Geli E, Leal-Blanquet J, Guirro P, Hinarejos P, Pelfort X, Puig-Verdie L. Comparison of quality of life between elderly patients undergoing TKA. Orthopedics. 2013;36(4):e415–e419. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130327-15.
    1. Bailey O, Ferguson K, Crawfurd E, James P, May PA, Brown S, Blyth M, Leach WJ. No clinical difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014
    1. Brandes M, Ringling M, Winter C, Hillmann A, Rosenbaum D. Changes in physical activity and health-related quality of life during the first year after total knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011;63(3):328–334.
    1. Breeman S, Campbell MK, Dakin H, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant A, Gray A, Johnston L, MacLennan GS, Morris RW, Murray DW. Five-year results of a randomised controlled trial comparing mobile and fixed bearings in total knee replacement. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(4):486–492. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B4.29454.
    1. Breugem SJ, Sierevelt IN, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Schaap GR, van Dijk CN. Less anterior knee pain with a mobile-bearing prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(8):1959–1965. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0320-6.
    1. Breugem SJ, van Ooij B, Haverkamp D, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN. No difference in anterior knee pain between a fixed and a mobile posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty after 7.9 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;22(3):509–516. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2281-2.
    1. Bruyere O, Ethgen O, Neuprez A, Zegels B, Gillet P, Huskin JP, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life after total knee or hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a 7-year prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(11):1583–1587. doi: 10.1007/s00402-012-1583-7.
    1. Cheng M, Chen D, Guo Y, Zhu C, Zhang X. Comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty with a mean five-year follow-up: a meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med. 2013;6(1):45–51.
    1. Chiu KY, Ng TP, Tang WM, Lam P. Bilateral total knee arthroplasty: one mobile-bearing and one fixed-bearing. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2001;9(1):45–50.
    1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(1):63–69. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859.
    1. Ferguson KB, Bailey O, Anthony I, James PJ, Stother IG, JGB M. A prospective randomised study comparing rotating platform and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty in a cruciate substituting design: outcomes at 2 year follow-up. Knee. 2014;21(1):151–155. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.09.007.
    1. Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Syed KA, Mahomed NN. Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol. 2009;28(3):253–257. doi: 10.1007/s10067-008-1021-y.
    1. Gothesen O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Petursson G, Hallan G, Strom E, Dyrhovden G, Furnes O. Functional outcome and alignment in computer-assisted and conventionally operated total knee replacements: a multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(5):609–618. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B5.32516.
    1. Hakki S, Saleh KJ, Potty AG, Bilotta V, Oliveira D. Columbus navigated TKA system: clinical and radiological results at a minimum of 5 years with survivorship analysis. Orthopedics. 2013;36(3):e308–e318. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20130222-19.
    1. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.
    1. Iosifidis M, Iliopoulos E, Neofytou D, Sakorafas N, Andreou D, Alvanos D, Kyriakidis A. The Rotaglide mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: no difference between cemented and hybrid implantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014
    1. Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Takeda M, Sato J, Toyabe S. Posterior condylar offset does not correlate with knee flexion after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(9):2995–3001. doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2999-2.
    1. Jones CA, Pohar S. Health-related quality of life after total joint arthroplasty: a scoping review. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28(3):395–429. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2012.06.001.
    1. Kujala UM, Jaakkola LH, Koskinen SK, Taimela S, Hurme M, Nelimarkka O. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(2):159–163. doi: 10.1016/S0749-8063(05)80366-4.
    1. Li YL, Wu Q, Ning GZ, Feng SQ, Wu QL, Li Y, Hao Y. No difference in clinical outcome between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKA: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;22(3):565–575. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2313-y.
    1. Mahoney OM, Kinsey TL, D’Errico TJ, Shen J. The John Insall Award: no functional advantage of a mobile bearing posterior stabilized TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):33–44. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2114-5.
    1. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, Zeni JA, Jr, Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance-based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(5):728–737. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.004.
    1. Mugnai R, Digennaro V, Ensini A, Leardini A, Catani F. Can TKA design affect the clinical outcome? comparison between two guided-motion systems. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(3):581–589. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2509-9.
    1. Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of joint motion: a guide to goniometry. 4. Philadelphia: F. A Davis; 2009.
    1. Nunez M, Lozano L, Nunez E, Segur JM, Sastre S, Macule F, Ortega R, Suso S. Total knee replacement and health-related quality of life: factors influencing long-term outcomes. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(8):1062–1069. doi: 10.1002/art.24644.
    1. Papakostidou I, Dailiana ZH, Papapolychroniou T, Liaropoulos L, Zintzaras E, Karachalios TS, Malizos KN. Factors affecting the quality of life after total knee arthroplasties: a prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:116. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-116.
    1. Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN. No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):61–68. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-1961-4.
    1. Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D, Juszczak E, Carter S, White S, de Steiger R, Dodd CA, Gibbons M, McLardy-Smith P, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW. A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85(1):62–67. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.85B1.13233.
    1. Ranawat CS, Flynn WF, Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ. Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:94–102.
    1. Roh YW, Jang J, Choi WC, Lee JK, Chun SH, Lee S, Seong SC, Lee MC. Preservation of the posterior cruciate ligament is not helpful in highly conforming mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(12):2850–2859. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2265-2.
    1. Sabouret P, Lavoie F, Cloutier JM. Total knee replacement with retention of both cruciate ligaments: a 22-year follow-up study. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(7):917–922. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B7.30904.
    1. Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R. Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1205–1213. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.12.017.
    1. Stoner K, Jerabek SA, Tow S, Wright TM, Padgett DE. Rotating-platform has no surface damage advantage over fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):76–85. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2530-1.
    1. Swinkels A, Allain TJ. Physical performance tests, self-reported outcomes, and accidental falls before and after total knee arthroplasty: an exploratory study. Physiother Theory Pract. 2013;29(6):432–442. doi: 10.3109/09593985.2012.755590.
    1. Thomsen MG, Husted H, Otte KS, Holm G, Troelsen A. Do patients care about higher flexion in total knee arthroplasty? a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:127. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-127.
    1. van der Voort P, Pijls BG, Nouta KA, Valstar ER, Jacobs WC, Nelissen RG. A systematic review and meta-regression of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee replacement in 41 studies. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(9):1209–1216. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B9.30386.
    1. Wen Y, Liu D, Huang Y, Li B. A meta-analysis of the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(10):1341–1350. doi: 10.1007/s00402-011-1328-z.
    1. Widmer BJ, Scholes CJ, Lustig S, Conrad L, Oussedik SI, Parker DA. Intraoperative computer navigation parameters are poor predictors of function 1 year after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(1):56–61. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.018.
    1. Wyatt MC, Frampton C, Horne JG, Devane P. Mobile- versus fixed-bearing modern total knee replacements- which is the more patella-friendly design? the 11-year New Zealand Joint Registry study. Bone Joint Res. 2013;2(7):129–131. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.27.2000159.
    1. Zeng Y, Shen B, Yang J, Zhou ZK, Kang PD, Pei FX. Is there reduced polyethylene wear and longer survival when using a mobile-bearing design in total knee replacement? a meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Bone Joint J. 2013;95(8):1057–1063. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31310.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel