Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

• Published in: Scientific reports Vol. 10; no. 1; p. 19075
• Main Authors: Zhang, Wenchao, Wang, Jianpeng, Li, Hui, Wang, Wanchun, George, Daniel M, Huang, Tianlong
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Nature Publishing Group 05.11.2020; Nature Publishing Group UK
• Subjects: Arthroplasty (knee); Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods; Humans; Joint replacement surgery; Joint surgery; Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects; Meta-analysis; Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery; Polyethylene; Prostheses; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis Failure; Prosthetics; Reoperation; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76124-z

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be either a fixed bearing (FB) or a mobile bearing (MB) construct with controversy as to which design is superior. This question is addressed with a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Studies were reviewed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria developed in advance. We compared the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the FB and MB UKAs. Analyses were performed with the Review Manager and STATA software. A total of 17 studies involving 2612 knees were included. No significant differences were presented between the FB and MB prostheses in clinical and radiological outcomes. However, it was evident that there were differences in the modes and timing of the failures, bearing dislocation led to earlier failures in the MB prosthesis, while the FB prosthesis failed later due to polyethylene wear. There was no evidence of publication bias using the incidence of revisions. There is no significant difference between the FB and MB UKAs; however, there are differences in the modes and timing of failures.