Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Prior studies have compared fixed-bearing uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (FB-UKA) with mobile-bearing uni-compartmental knee arthroplasty (MB-UKA)， suggesting that both procedures have good clinical outcomes. However, which treatment is more beneficial for patients is controversial. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the postoperative outcomes, including the revision rate, complications, functional results, range of motion (ROM), and femoral-tibial angle (FTA), between the two procedures. Methods We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases starting from August 2017 to May 2018. The publication date of articles was not restricted. Before we submit our contribution, we have re-searched it again. Articles that directly compared the postoperative outcomes of the two prosthesis type were included. Results A total of 15 comparative studies were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled data indicated no differences between the two operation modes in terms of revision rates, complications and knee function, but earlier failure occurred more frequently with the MB design. Conclusion Both of the arthroplasty types provided satisfactory clinical results for patients with classic indications. However, MB-UKA tended to fail in early postoperative years whereas FB-UKA in later postoperative years. Therefore treatment options should be carefully considered for each patient, and surgeons should still use their personal experience when deciding between these options.