Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNamba, Robert S
dc.contributor.authorInacio, Maria C S
dc.contributor.authorPaxton, Elizabeth W
dc.contributor.authorRobertsson, Otto
dc.contributor.authorGraves, Stephen E
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-05T09:25:19Z
dc.date.available2012-06-05T09:25:19Z
dc.date.issued2011-12-21
dc.date.submitted2012-06-05
dc.identifier.citationJ. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2011, 93(Suppl 3):48-50en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1535-1386
dc.identifier.pmid22262423
dc.identifier.doi10.2106/JBJS.K.00982
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2336/227496
dc.descriptionTo access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field.en_GB
dc.description.abstractThe conventional wisdom that a mobile-bearing design may offer a benefit compared with a fixed-bearing design in total knee arthroplasty has not been supported by evidence. We reviewed the published literature and annual registry reports of all national and regional registries to determine the differences in clinical outcomes between mobile and fixed-bearing designs. We found only single-center reports and studies with small sample sizes in the published literature. These studies did not demonstrate any advantages of mobile bearings over fixed bearings. Moreover, major national joint registries reported higher failure rates associated with mobile-bearing total knee replacement compared with fixed-bearing total knee replacement. Similar findings from a U.S. national study in a community setting suggest that mobile-bearing knees have an increased risk of revision. After harmonization of methodologies, international collaborations of registries may provide the best insight into the performance of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in real-world settings.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherJournal of Bone and Joint Surgeryen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00982en_GB
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volumeen_GB
dc.subject.meshArthroplasty, Replacement, Kneeen_GB
dc.subject.meshHumansen_GB
dc.subject.meshInformation Disseminationen_GB
dc.subject.meshInternational Cooperationen_GB
dc.subject.meshKnee Prosthesisen_GB
dc.subject.meshProduct Surveillance, Postmarketingen_GB
dc.subject.meshProsthesis Designen_GB
dc.subject.meshReference Standardsen_GB
dc.subject.meshRegistriesen_GB
dc.subject.meshReoperationen_GB
dc.subject.meshTreatment Outcomeen_GB
dc.titleThe role of registry data in the evaluation of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente Orange County, 6670 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618, USA. robert.s.namba@kp.orgen_GB
dc.identifier.journalJournal of bone and joint surgery. American volumeen_GB
html.description.abstractThe conventional wisdom that a mobile-bearing design may offer a benefit compared with a fixed-bearing design in total knee arthroplasty has not been supported by evidence. We reviewed the published literature and annual registry reports of all national and regional registries to determine the differences in clinical outcomes between mobile and fixed-bearing designs. We found only single-center reports and studies with small sample sizes in the published literature. These studies did not demonstrate any advantages of mobile bearings over fixed bearings. Moreover, major national joint registries reported higher failure rates associated with mobile-bearing total knee replacement compared with fixed-bearing total knee replacement. Similar findings from a U.S. national study in a community setting suggest that mobile-bearing knees have an increased risk of revision. After harmonization of methodologies, international collaborations of registries may provide the best insight into the performance of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in real-world settings.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record