Clinical and radiological outcomes of fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a meta-analysis

Toby O. Smith; Farshid Ejtehadi; Rachel Nichols; Leigh Davies; Simon T. Donell; Caroline B. Hing

doi:10.1007/s00167-009-0909-7

Clinical and radiological outcomes of fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a meta-analysis

Toby O. Smith, Farshid Ejtehadi, Rachel Nichols, Leigh Davies, Simon T. Donell, Caroline B. Hing

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Controversy exists regarding the clinical and radiological differences in outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements (TKR). The aim of this study was to compare these two TKR designs using a meta-analysis of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED in addition to a review of unpublished material. All included papers were critically appraised using a modified PEDro critical appraisal tool. Thirty-three studies were eligible, assessing the outcomes of 3532 TKRs. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical or radiological outcomes and complication rates between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKRs.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	325-340
Number of pages	16
Journal	Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Volume	18
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0909-7
Publication status	Published - Mar 2010

Access to Document

10.1007/s00167-009-0909-7

Cite this

@article{1b38d8b254e548f0a86233f1a843f582,

title = "Clinical and radiological outcomes of fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a meta-analysis",

abstract = "Controversy exists regarding the clinical and radiological differences in outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements (TKR). The aim of this study was to compare these two TKR designs using a meta-analysis of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED in addition to a review of unpublished material. All included papers were critically appraised using a modified PEDro critical appraisal tool. Thirty-three studies were eligible, assessing the outcomes of 3532 TKRs. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical or radiological outcomes and complication rates between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKRs.",

author = "Smith, {Toby O.} and Farshid Ejtehadi and Rachel Nichols and Leigh Davies and Donell, {Simon T.} and Hing, {Caroline B.}",

year = "2010",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1007/s00167-009-0909-7",

language = "English",

volume = "18",

pages = "325--340",

journal = "Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy",

issn = "0942-2056",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical and radiological outcomes of fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a meta-analysis

AU - Smith, Toby O.

AU - Ejtehadi, Farshid

AU - Nichols, Rachel

AU - Davies, Leigh

AU - Donell, Simon T.

AU - Hing, Caroline B.

PY - 2010/3

Y1 - 2010/3

N2 - Controversy exists regarding the clinical and radiological differences in outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements (TKR). The aim of this study was to compare these two TKR designs using a meta-analysis of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED in addition to a review of unpublished material. All included papers were critically appraised using a modified PEDro critical appraisal tool. Thirty-three studies were eligible, assessing the outcomes of 3532 TKRs. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical or radiological outcomes and complication rates between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKRs.

AB - Controversy exists regarding the clinical and radiological differences in outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements (TKR). The aim of this study was to compare these two TKR designs using a meta-analysis of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED in addition to a review of unpublished material. All included papers were critically appraised using a modified PEDro critical appraisal tool. Thirty-three studies were eligible, assessing the outcomes of 3532 TKRs. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical or radiological outcomes and complication rates between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKRs.

U2 - 10.1007/s00167-009-0909-7

DO - 10.1007/s00167-009-0909-7

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 325

EP - 340

JO - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

JF - Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

SN - 0942-2056

IS - 3

ER -