These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy.
    Author: Hernigou P, Huys M, Pariat J, Roubineau F, Flouzat Lachaniette CH, Dubory A.
    Journal: Int Orthop; 2018 Feb; 42(2):317-322. PubMed ID: 28667383.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: There is no information comparing the results of fixed-bearing total knee replacement and mobile-bearing total knee replacement in the same patients previously treated by high tibial osteotomy. The purpose was therefore to compare fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements in patients treated with previous high tibial osteotomy. METHODS: We compared the results of 57 patients with osteoarthritis who had received a fixed-bearing prosthesis after high tibial osteotomy with the results of 41 matched patients who had received a rotating platform after high tibial osteotomy. The match was made for length of follow-up period. The mean follow-up was 17 years (range, 15-20 years). The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically. RESULTS: The pre-operative knee scores had no statistically significant differences between the two groups. So was the case with the intra-operative releases, blood loss, thromboembolic complications and infection rates in either group. There was significant improvement in both groups of knees, and no significant difference was observed between the groups (i.e., fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing knees) for the mean Knee Society knee clinical score (95 and 92 points, respectively), or the Knee Society knee functional score (82 and 83 points, respectively) at the latest follow-up. However, the mean post-operative knee motion was higher for the fixed-bearing group (117° versus 110°). In the fixed-bearing group, one knee was revised because of periprosthetic fracture. In the rotating platform mobile-bearing group, one knee was revised because of aseptic loosening of the tibial component. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for revision at ten years of follow-up was 95.2% for the fixed bearing prosthesis and 91.1% for the rotating platform mobile-bearing prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Although we did manage to detect significant differences mainly in clinical and radiographic results between the two groups, we found no superiority or inferiority of the mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis over the fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis for patients previously operated by high tibial osteotomy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]