Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Outcomes of fixed versus mobile-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
Fricka, Kevin B; Wilson, Eric J; Strait, Alexander V; Ho, Henry; Hopper, Robert H; Hamilton, William G; Sershon, Robert A.
Affiliation
  • Fricka KB; Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
  • Wilson EJ; Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
  • Strait AV; Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
  • Ho H; Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
  • Hopper RH; Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
  • Hamilton WG; Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
  • Sershon RA; Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA.
Bone Joint J ; 106-B(9): 916-923, 2024 Sep 01.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39216863
ABSTRACT

Aims:

The optimal bearing surface design for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) UKAs from a single high-volume institution.

Methods:

Prospectively collected data were reviewed for all primary cemented medial UKAs performed by seven surgeons from January 2006 to December 2022. A total of 2,999 UKAs were identified, including 2,315 FB and 684 MB cases. The primary outcome measure was implant survival. Secondary outcomes included 90-day and cumulative complications, reoperations, component revisions, conversion arthroplasties, range of motion, and patient-reported outcome measures. Overall mean age at surgery was 65.7 years (32.9 to 94.3), 53.1% (1,593/2,999) of UKAs were implanted in female patients, and demographics between groups were similar (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up for all UKAs was 3.7 years (0.0 to 15.6).

Results:

Using revision for any reason as an endpoint, five-year survival for FB UKAs was 97.2% (95% CI 96.4 to 98.1) compared to 96.0% for MB (95% CI 94.1 to 97.9; p = 0.008). The FB group experienced fewer component revisions (14/2,315, 0.6% vs 12/684, 1.8%; p < 0.001) and conversion arthroplasties (38/2315, 1.6% vs 24/684, 3.5%; p < 0.001). A greater number of MB UKAs underwent revision due to osteoarthritis progression (FB = 21/2,315, 0.9% vs MB = 16/684, 2.3%; p = 0.003). In the MB group, 12 (1.8%) subjects experienced bearing dislocations which required revision surgery. There were 15 early periprosthetic tibia fractures (0.6%) in the FB group compared to 0 for MB (p = 0.035).

Conclusion:

In similar patient populations, FB UKAs demonstrated slightly higher survival than a commonly used MB design. Adverse event profiles differed by bearing type, with an increased risk of bearing dislocation and OA progression with MB designs, and early periprosthetic tibia fractures for FB designs.
Subject(s)

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prosthesis Design / Reoperation / Prosthesis Failure / Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Knee Prosthesis Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Bone Joint J Year: 2024 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Prosthesis Design / Reoperation / Prosthesis Failure / Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Knee Prosthesis Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Bone Joint J Year: 2024 Document type: Article