4.6 Article

A Comparison of Mobile and Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

Journal

JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY
Volume 33, Issue 6, Pages 1713-1718

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE INC MEDICAL PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.001

Keywords

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; mobile-bearing; fixed-bearing; implant survival; functional outcomes; revision

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The long-term survivorship and functional outcomes of the mobile-bearing (MB) compared to the fixed-bearing (FB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) implant design remain a topic of debate. The aim of the current study was to compare the survivorship and functional outcomes of MB and FB UKA at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 106 consecutive medial UKAs (89 patients) from our institution with a minimum 10-year follow-up. The 38 MB and 68 FB knees had follow-up of 14.2 years (12.9-15.5) and 11.5 years (10.2-15.1), respectively. Validated patient-reported outcomes and radiographs were evaluated as were etiology, timing, and complexity of revision. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival was calculated with revision to total knee arthroplasty as the end point. Results: The 10-year survival was 82.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65.8-91.9) for MB and 90.9% (95% CI 79.4-96.2) for FB UKA (P = .102), and 88.0% (95% CI 79.3-93.2) for the entire cohort. Patient outcomes were similar between groups, as were timing and etiologies for revision to total knee arthroplasty. One-third of revisions required either stems or tibial augments, and of these, all were of MB design. Conclusion: Survival and functional outcomes were similar between MB and FB designs. One-third of revisions required either stems or augments, all were of MB design. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available