Institute of Orthopaedics, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Colney Lane, Norwich, Norfolk NR2 7UY, UK.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Mar;18(3):325-40. doi: 10.1007/s00167-009-0909-7. Epub 2009 Sep 25.
Controversy exists regarding the clinical and radiological differences in outcomes between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements (TKR). The aim of this study was to compare these two TKR designs using a meta-analysis of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED in addition to a review of unpublished material. All included papers were critically appraised using a modified PEDro critical appraisal tool. Thirty-three studies were eligible, assessing the outcomes of 3532 TKRs. Analysis suggested that there was no significant difference in clinical or radiological outcomes and complication rates between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKRs.
关于固定和活动衬垫全膝关节置换术（TKR）在临床和影像学结果方面的差异存在争议。本研究的目的是通过对 MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL 和 AMED 电子数据库的荟萃分析以及对未发表材料的回顾，来比较这两种 TKR 设计。所有纳入的论文均使用改良的 PEDro 批判性评估工具进行严格评估。有 33 项研究符合条件，评估了 3532 例 TKR 的结果。分析表明，固定和活动衬垫 TKR 在临床和影像学结果以及并发症发生率方面没有显著差异。
