Loading…

Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: A meta-analysis

Summary This systematic review compares the clinical, radiological and kinematic outcomes of fixed compared to mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs). A meta-analysis of pooled mean difference and relative risk data was undertaken following a review of electronic databases. Five st...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research surgery & research, 2009-12, Vol.95 (8), p.599-605
Main Authors:	Smith, T.O, Hing, C.B, Davies, L, Donell, S.T
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Subjects:	Aged Aged, 80 and over Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods Bearing Female Fixed Follow-Up Studies Humans Knee Prosthesis Male Meta-analysis Middle Aged Mobile Orthopedics Osteoarthritis, Knee - diagnostic imaging Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery Postoperative Complications - physiopathology Prosthesis Design Prosthesis Failure Radiography Reoperation Risk Assessment Stress, Mechanical Surgery Treatment Outcome Unicompartmental knee replacement United Kingdom Weight-Bearing
Citations:	Items that this one cites Items that cite this one
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

cited_by	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-8670aac89a3f691c82720f4acb6fb298fa1dc4cfb9b390bfd2d0ccc4992346a53
cites	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-8670aac89a3f691c82720f4acb6fb298fa1dc4cfb9b390bfd2d0ccc4992346a53
container_end_page	605
container_issue	8
container_start_page	599
container_title	Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research
container_volume	95
creator	Smith, T.O Hing, C.B Davies, L Donell, S.T
description	Summary This systematic review compares the clinical, radiological and kinematic outcomes of fixed compared to mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs). A meta-analysis of pooled mean difference and relative risk data was undertaken following a review of electronic databases. Five studies were identified. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical outcome or complication rate between mobile and fixed bearing UKR. However, the evidence reviewed presented with a number of methodological limitations. Areas for further study are recommended. Level of evidence Level I.
doi_str_mv	10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006
format	article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733387054</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S187705680900173X</els_id><sourcerecordid>733387054</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-8670aac89a3f691c82720f4acb6fb298fa1dc4cfb9b390bfd2d0ccc4992346a53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU-L1EAQxRtR3HX1C3iQ3DxltvrPJGkRYVlcV1j0oIK3plOpSM92krErWZxvb4cZUDx4quLx3oP6lRAvJWwkyOpyt5lmThsFYLOwAageiXPZ1HUJ26p5_Nd-Jp4x77Khklo9FWfSWqOMlefi0034RV3xQIkXLoapDZGKlnwK449iGQNOw96neaBx9rG4H4mKRPvokVbpTXFVDDT70o8-Hjjwc_Gk95HpxWleiG83779e35Z3nz98vL66K9FszVw2VQ3eY2O97isrsVG1gt54bKu-VbbpvezQYN_aVlto-051gIjGWqVN5bf6Qrw-9u7T9HMhnt0QGClGP9K0sKu11k0NW5Od6ujENDEn6t0-hcGng5PgVoxu51aMbsW4aplSDr061S_tQN2fyIlbNrw9Gigf-RAoOcZAI1IXEuHsuin8v__dP3GMIcP28Z4OxLtpSRkoO-lYOXBf1keufwQLIGv9Xf8GEIaaIA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>733387054</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: A meta-analysis</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Smith, T.O ; Hing, C.B ; Davies, L ; Donell, S.T</creator><creatorcontrib>Smith, T.O ; Hing, C.B ; Davies, L ; Donell, S.T</creatorcontrib><description>Summary This systematic review compares the clinical, radiological and kinematic outcomes of fixed compared to mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs). A meta-analysis of pooled mean difference and relative risk data was undertaken following a review of electronic databases. Five studies were identified. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical outcome or complication rate between mobile and fixed bearing UKR. However, the evidence reviewed presented with a number of methodological limitations. Areas for further study are recommended. Level of evidence Level I.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1877-0568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1877-0568</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19942491</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>France: Elsevier Masson SAS</publisher><subject>Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods ; Bearing ; Female ; Fixed ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Knee Prosthesis ; Male ; Meta-analysis ; Middle Aged ; Mobile ; Orthopedics ; Osteoarthritis, Knee - diagnostic imaging ; Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery ; Postoperative Complications - physiopathology ; Prosthesis Design ; Prosthesis Failure ; Radiography ; Reoperation ; Risk Assessment ; Stress, Mechanical ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome ; Unicompartmental knee replacement ; United Kingdom ; Weight-Bearing</subject><ispartof>Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research, 2009-12, Vol.95 (8), p.599-605</ispartof><rights>2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-8670aac89a3f691c82720f4acb6fb298fa1dc4cfb9b390bfd2d0ccc4992346a53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-8670aac89a3f691c82720f4acb6fb298fa1dc4cfb9b390bfd2d0ccc4992346a53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19942491$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Smith, T.O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hing, C.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donell, S.T</creatorcontrib><title>Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: A meta-analysis</title><title>Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research</title><addtitle>Orthop Traumatol Surg Res</addtitle><description>Summary This systematic review compares the clinical, radiological and kinematic outcomes of fixed compared to mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs). A meta-analysis of pooled mean difference and relative risk data was undertaken following a review of electronic databases. Five studies were identified. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical outcome or complication rate between mobile and fixed bearing UKR. However, the evidence reviewed presented with a number of methodological limitations. Areas for further study are recommended. Level of evidence Level I.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</subject><subject>Bearing</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fixed</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Knee Prosthesis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mobile</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Osteoarthritis, Knee - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications - physiopathology</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Radiography</subject><subject>Reoperation</subject><subject>Risk Assessment</subject><subject>Stress, Mechanical</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Unicompartmental knee replacement</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><subject>Weight-Bearing</subject><issn>1877-0568</issn><issn>1877-0568</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU-L1EAQxRtR3HX1C3iQ3DxltvrPJGkRYVlcV1j0oIK3plOpSM92krErWZxvb4cZUDx4quLx3oP6lRAvJWwkyOpyt5lmThsFYLOwAageiXPZ1HUJ26p5_Nd-Jp4x77Khklo9FWfSWqOMlefi0034RV3xQIkXLoapDZGKlnwK449iGQNOw96neaBx9rG4H4mKRPvokVbpTXFVDDT70o8-Hjjwc_Gk95HpxWleiG83779e35Z3nz98vL66K9FszVw2VQ3eY2O97isrsVG1gt54bKu-VbbpvezQYN_aVlto-051gIjGWqVN5bf6Qrw-9u7T9HMhnt0QGClGP9K0sKu11k0NW5Od6ujENDEn6t0-hcGng5PgVoxu51aMbsW4aplSDr061S_tQN2fyIlbNrw9Gigf-RAoOcZAI1IXEuHsuin8v__dP3GMIcP28Z4OxLtpSRkoO-lYOXBf1keufwQLIGv9Xf8GEIaaIA</recordid><startdate>20091201</startdate><enddate>20091201</enddate><creator>Smith, T.O</creator><creator>Hing, C.B</creator><creator>Davies, L</creator><creator>Donell, S.T</creator><general>Elsevier Masson SAS</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091201</creationdate><title>Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: A meta-analysis</title><author>Smith, T.O ; Hing, C.B ; Davies, L ; Donell, S.T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-8670aac89a3f691c82720f4acb6fb298fa1dc4cfb9b390bfd2d0ccc4992346a53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</topic><topic>Bearing</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fixed</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Knee Prosthesis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mobile</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Osteoarthritis, Knee - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications - physiopathology</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Radiography</topic><topic>Reoperation</topic><topic>Risk Assessment</topic><topic>Stress, Mechanical</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Unicompartmental knee replacement</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><topic>Weight-Bearing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Smith, T.O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hing, C.B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davies, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Donell, S.T</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Smith, T.O</au><au>Hing, C.B</au><au>Davies, L</au><au>Donell, S.T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: A meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research</jtitle><addtitle>Orthop Traumatol Surg Res</addtitle><date>2009-12-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>599</spage><epage>605</epage><pages>599-605</pages><issn>1877-0568</issn><eissn>1877-0568</eissn><abstract>Summary This systematic review compares the clinical, radiological and kinematic outcomes of fixed compared to mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs). A meta-analysis of pooled mean difference and relative risk data was undertaken following a review of electronic databases. Five studies were identified. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical outcome or complication rate between mobile and fixed bearing UKR. However, the evidence reviewed presented with a number of methodological limitations. Areas for further study are recommended. Level of evidence Level I.</abstract><cop>France</cop><pub>Elsevier Masson SAS</pub><pmid>19942491</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 1877-0568
ispartof	Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research, 2009-12, Vol.95 (8), p.599-605
issn	1877-0568 1877-0568
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_733387054
source	ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects	Aged Aged, 80 and over Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods Bearing Female Fixed Follow-Up Studies Humans Knee Prosthesis Male Meta-analysis Middle Aged Mobile Orthopedics Osteoarthritis, Knee - diagnostic imaging Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery Postoperative Complications - physiopathology Prosthesis Design Prosthesis Failure Radiography Reoperation Risk Assessment Stress, Mechanical Surgery Treatment Outcome Unicompartmental knee replacement United Kingdom Weight-Bearing
title	Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: A meta-analysis
url	http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T19%3A48%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Fixed%20versus%20mobile%20bearing%20unicompartmental%20knee%20replacement:%20A%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=Orthopaedics%20&%20traumatology,%20surgery%20&%20research&rft.au=Smith,%20T.O&rft.date=2009-12-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=599&rft.epage=605&rft.pages=599-605&rft.issn=1877-0568&rft.eissn=1877-0568&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E733387054%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c454t-8670aac89a3f691c82720f4acb6fb298fa1dc4cfb9b390bfd2d0ccc4992346a53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=733387054&rft_id=info:pmid/19942491&rfr_iscdi=true