A systematic review and meta-regression of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee replacement in 41 studies.

Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR) was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of polyethylene inserts. However, no consistent clinical advantages of mobile- over fixed-bearing (FB) TKR have been found. In this study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome scores. Furthermore, we determined which modifying variables affected the outcome. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to collect clinical trials comparing MB and FB in primary TKR. The primary outcomes were revision rates for any reason, aseptic loosening and wear. Secondary outcomes included range of movement, Knee Society score (KSS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form 12 (SF-12) score and radiological parameters. Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1827 publications, of which 41 studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising over 6000 TKRs. Meta-analyses showed no clinically relevant differences in terms of revision rates, clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between MB and FB TKRs. It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice.

Revision surgery is overestimated in hip replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The Kaplan-Meier estimation is widely used in orthopedics to calculate the probability of revision surgery. Using data from a long-term follow-up study, we aimed to assess the amount of bias introduced by the Kaplan-Meier estimator in a competing risk setting. METHODS: We describe both the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the competing risk model, and explain why the competing risk model is a more appropriate approach to estimate the probability of revision surgery when patients die in a hip revision surgery cohort. In our study, a total of 62 acetabular revisions were performed. After a mean of 25 years, no patients were lost to follow-up, 13 patients had undergone revision surgery and 33 patients died of causes unrelated to their hip. RESULTS: The Kaplan-Meier estimator overestimates the probability of revision surgery in our example by 3%, 11%, 28%, 32% and 60% at five, ten, 15, 20 and 25 years, respectively. As the cumulative incidence of the competing event increases over time, as does the amount of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Ignoring competing risks leads to biased estimations of the probability of revision surgery. In order to guide choosing the appropriate statistical analysis in future clinical studies, we propose a flowchart.