Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No.139 Middle Renmin Road, Changsha, Hunan, 410011, People's Republic of China.
Department of Orthopaedics, Honghui Hospital, Xi'An Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shanxi, People's Republic of China.
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 5;10(1):19075. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76124-z.
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be either a fixed bearing (FB) or a mobile bearing (MB) construct with controversy as to which design is superior. This question is addressed with a systematic review and meta-analysis. A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Studies were reviewed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria developed in advance. We compared the differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between the FB and MB UKAs. Analyses were performed with the Review Manager and STATA software. A total of 17 studies involving 2612 knees were included. No significant differences were presented between the FB and MB prostheses in clinical and radiological outcomes. However, it was evident that there were differences in the modes and timing of the failures, bearing dislocation led to earlier failures in the MB prosthesis, while the FB prosthesis failed later due to polyethylene wear. There was no evidence of publication bias using the incidence of revisions. There is no significant difference between the FB and MB UKAs; however, there are differences in the modes and timing of failures.
单髁膝关节置换术（UKA）可采用固定衬垫（FB）或活动衬垫（MB）设计，哪种设计更优尚存争议。本研究通过系统评价和荟萃分析来解决这一问题。采用 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 进行文献检索。根据预先制定的纳入和排除标准对研究进行评估。我们比较了 FB 和 MB UKA 在临床和影像学结果方面的差异。采用 Review Manager 和 STATA 软件进行分析。共纳入 17 项研究，涉及 2612 个膝关节。FB 和 MB 假体在临床和影像学结果方面无显著差异。然而，失败模式和时间存在差异，MB 假体的脱位导致早期失败，而 FB 假体则因聚乙烯磨损而导致后期失败。使用修订发生率未发现发表偏倚的证据。FB 和 MB UKA 之间无显著差异，但失败模式和时间存在差异。
