BEST PROSTHESIS FOR UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROSIS: FIXED OR MOBILE?

IF 0.5 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":0.5000,"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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS IN MALIGNANT SPINAL TUMORS: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS. DIAGNOSTIC COMPETENCE IN BONE TUMORS: INFLUENCE OF ONCO-ORTHOPEDIC TRAINING. FREQUENCY AND MODALITY OF EXERCISE ON PAIN AND INDEPENDENCE IN ELDERLY INDIVIDUALS WITH OSTEOARTHRITIS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY. BEST PROSTHESIS FOR UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROSIS: FIXED OR MOBILE? PEDIATRIC FRACTURES IN A TERTIARY PUBLIC HOSPITAL: WHAT ARE WE DEALING WITH?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1