View : 15 Download: 4

Long-term comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements in patients younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis

Title
Long-term comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements in patients younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis
Authors
Kim Y.-H.Kim J.-S.Choe J.-W.Kim H.-J.
Ewha Authors
김영후김준식
SCOPUS Author ID
김영후scopus; 김준식scopus
Issue Date
2012
Journal Title
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A
ISSN
0021-9355JCR Link
Citation
vol. 94, no. 10, pp. 866 - 873
Indexed
SCI; SCIE; SCOPUS WOS scopus
Abstract
Background: There is limited information comparing the results of fixed-bearing total knee replacement andmobile-bearing total knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis who are younger than fifty-one years and who have a fixed-bearing implant in one knee and amobile-bearing implant in the other. The purpose of this study was to compare our long-termclinical and radiographic results of fixed-bearing total knee replacement and mobile-bearing total knee replacement in a group of patients from this population. Methods: We prospectively compared the results of 108 patients with osteoarthritis who were younger than fifty-one years (mean age, forty-five years) who had received a fixed-bearing prosthesis in one knee and a rotating platform mobilebearing prosthesis in the other. The mean follow-up was 16.8 years (range, fifteen to eighteen years). The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically. Knee motion and function were assessed as a primary outcome. Patients were assessed with questionnaires, and each knee was assessed separately. Results: Although there was significant improvement in both groups of knees, there was no significant difference between the groups (i.e., fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing knees) with regard to the mean postoperative knee motion (126° and 128°, respectively; p = 0.79), themean Knee Society knee clinical score (95 and 94 points, respectively; p = 0.79), or the Knee Society knee functional score (84 and 85 points, respectively; p = 0.19) at the latest follow-up. In the fixed-bearing group, one knee was revised because of infection, two for aseptic loosening of the tibial component, and two because of wear of the tibial polyethylene insert. In the rotating platformmobile-bearing group, two knees were revised because of instability and one because of infection. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for revision at 16.8 years of follow-up was 95% (95% confidence interval, 91 to 100) for the fixedbearing prosthesis and 97% (95% confidence interval, 93 to 100) for the rotating platform mobile-bearing prosthesis. Conclusions: Long-term results of both fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties were encouraging in patients who were younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis. However, we found no superiority of the mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis over the fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Copyright © 2012 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
DOI
10.2106/JBJS.K.00884
Appears in Collections:
의과대학 > 의학과 > Journal papers
Files in This Item:
001.pdf(672.65 kB)Download
Export
RIS (EndNote)
XLS (Excel)
XML


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE