BEST PROSTHESIS FOR UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROSIS: FIXED OR MOBILE?

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 ORTHOPEDICS
Acta Ortopedica Brasileira Pub Date : 2025-02-03 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1590/1413-785220253301e285052
Fabrício Luz Cardoso, Deusimar Cristian Dos Santos Gomez, Fabrício Roberto Severino, Patrícia Maria Moraes de Barros de Fucs
{"title":"BEST PROSTHESIS FOR UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROSIS: FIXED OR MOBILE?","authors":"Fabrício Luz Cardoso, Deusimar Cristian Dos Santos Gomez, Fabrício Roberto Severino, Patrícia Maria Moraes de Barros de Fucs","doi":"10.1590/1413-785220253301e285052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing knee unicompartmental arthroplasty implants in adults (in the medial compartment) to determine which is better for each patient and their particularities. The research focused on postoperative assessments with a follow-up of at least a 2-year, examining both quality of life and mid-term functionality in the medium term. A systematic keyword search was executed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, employing a filter for randomized clinical trials and without language limitations. The search yielded 113 articles from March 28, 2024, including 83 from PubMed, 12 from EMBASE, and 18 from the Cochrane Library. The study found insufficient evidence to establish the superiority of one prosthetic type over the other regarding post-operative function, pain, complications, revisions, and quality of life after a 2-year follow-up. Literature highlights uncertainties in comparing UKA types due to varied assessment tools. No conclusive evidence favors either type regarding post-op function, pain, complication rates, revisions, or quality of life after 2 years. Urgent need for standardized, long-term, multicenter studies to inform evidence-based clinical practice. <b><i>Level of Evidence I; Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.</i></b></p>","PeriodicalId":55563,"journal":{"name":"Acta Ortopedica Brasileira","volume":"33 1","pages":"e285052"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11801209/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Ortopedica Brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-785220253301e285052","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing knee unicompartmental arthroplasty implants in adults (in the medial compartment) to determine which is better for each patient and their particularities. The research focused on postoperative assessments with a follow-up of at least a 2-year, examining both quality of life and mid-term functionality in the medium term. A systematic keyword search was executed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, employing a filter for randomized clinical trials and without language limitations. The search yielded 113 articles from March 28, 2024, including 83 from PubMed, 12 from EMBASE, and 18 from the Cochrane Library. The study found insufficient evidence to establish the superiority of one prosthetic type over the other regarding post-operative function, pain, complications, revisions, and quality of life after a 2-year follow-up. Literature highlights uncertainties in comparing UKA types due to varied assessment tools. No conclusive evidence favors either type regarding post-op function, pain, complication rates, revisions, or quality of life after 2 years. Urgent need for standardized, long-term, multicenter studies to inform evidence-based clinical practice. Level of Evidence I; Systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Abstract Image

单室膝关节最佳假体:固定式还是移动式?
本研究旨在比较固定承重和活动承重的成人单腔膝关节置换术(在内侧腔室),以确定哪一种更适合每个患者及其特殊性。该研究的重点是术后评估,随访至少2年,检查中期生活质量和中期功能。在PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库中进行系统的关键词搜索,采用随机临床试验过滤器,无语言限制。从2024年3月28日起,检索得到113篇文章,其中83篇来自PubMed, 12篇来自EMBASE, 18篇来自Cochrane图书馆。研究发现,在2年随访后,没有足够的证据证明一种假体在术后功能、疼痛、并发症、修复和生活质量方面优于另一种假体。文献强调了由于不同的评估工具在比较UKA类型时的不确定性。在术后功能、疼痛、并发症发生率、修复或2年后的生活质量方面,没有确凿的证据支持这两种类型。迫切需要标准化的、长期的、多中心的研究来为循证临床实践提供信息。证据等级I;随机对照试验的系统评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: A Revista Acta Ortopédica Brasileira, órgão oficial do Departamento de Ortopedia e Traumatologia da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (DOT/FMUSP), é publicada bimestralmente em seis edições ao ano (jan/fev, mar/abr, maio/jun, jul/ago, set/out e nov/dez) com versão em inglês disponível nos principais indexadores nacionais e internacionais e instituições de ensino do Brasil. Sendo hoje reconhecidamente uma importante contribuição para os especialistas da área com sua seriedade e árduo trabalho para as indexações já conquistadas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信