Mobile Bearing versus Fixed Bearing for Unicompartmental Arthroplasty in Monocompartmental Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

Whether mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performs better than fixed-bearing (FB) implants in patients with monocompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) still remains unclear. Therefore, a meta-analysis comparing MB versus FB for UKA was conducted to investigate the possible advantages of MB versus FB in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications. We hypothesised that the MB design performs better than FB.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. In December 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were accessed, with no time constraints. All the clinical investigations comparing MB versus FB bearing for UKA were accessed. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals were considered. Studies reporting data on revision settings were excluded, as were those combining unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Data from 25 studies (4696 patients) were collected; 58% (2724 of 4696 patients) were women. The mean length of follow-up was 45.8 ± 43.2. The mean age of the patients was 65.0 ± 5.6 years. No difference was found in range of motion ( = 0.05), Knee Scoring System ( = 0.9), function subscale ( = 0.2), and Oxford Knee Score ( = 0.4). No difference was found in the rate of revision ( = 0.2), aseptic loosening ( = 0.9), deep infections ( = 0.99), fractures ( = 0.6), and further extension of OA to the contralateral joint compartment ( = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis failed to identify the possible superiority of the MB implants over the FB for UKA in patients with monocompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Long observational investigations are required to evaluate possible long-term complications and implant survivorship. These results should be interpreted within the limitations of the present study.