Bloom Kevin J, Gupta Rishi R, Caravella Joseph W, Shishani Yousef F, Klika Alison K, Barsoum Wael K
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio.
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):106-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.021. Epub 2013 May 23.
Comparisons of fixed- (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) implants have failed to demonstrate a superiority of one design over the other. Despite showing equally successful outcomes, the wear patterns and small particulate debris associated with MB implants have been linked to an increased prevalence of osteolysis. This study compared the complexity of revision surgery for both bearing types. Operative time, use of augmentation and/or bone grafts, and the level of constraint required during revision were used to assess complexity. It was found that MB knees more frequently required tibial augmentation in our sample population (P=0.020), but overall surgical complexity was equivalent for revisions of both implant designs. These data suggest that additional research pertaining to the potential differences between implants be investigated.
对固定承重（FB）和活动承重（MB）植入物的比较未能证明一种设计优于另一种。尽管两种植入物都显示出同样成功的结果，但与MB植入物相关的磨损模式和微小颗粒碎片与骨溶解患病率的增加有关。本研究比较了两种承重类型翻修手术的复杂性。手术时间、是否使用增强材料和/或骨移植以及翻修期间所需的限制程度被用于评估复杂性。研究发现，在我们的样本群体中，MB膝关节更频繁地需要胫骨增强（P = 0.020），但两种植入物设计翻修的总体手术复杂性相当。这些数据表明，需要对植入物之间的潜在差异进行更多研究。
