The widely used and well-proven Palacos R (a.k.a. Refobacin Palacos
R) bone cement is no longer commercially available and was superseded
by Refobacin bone cement R and Palacos R + G in 2005. However, the
performance of these newly introduced bone cements have not been
tested in a phased evidence-based manner, including roentgen stereophotogrammetric
analysis (RSA). In this blinded, randomised, clinical RSA study, the migration
of the Stanmore femoral component was compared between Refobacin
bone cement R and Palacos R + G in 62 consecutive total hip arthroplasties.
The primary outcome measure was femoral component migration measured
using RSA and secondary outcomes were Harris hip score (HHS), Hip
disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D)
and Short Form 36 (SF-36).Aims
Patients and Methods
Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR)
was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of
polyethylene inserts. However, no consistent clinical advantages
of mobile- over fixed-bearing (FB) TKR have been found. In this
study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over
fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome
scores. Furthermore, we determined which modifying variables affected
the outcome. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to collect
clinical trials comparing MB and FB in primary TKR. The primary
outcomes were revision rates for any reason, aseptic loosening and
wear. Secondary outcomes included range of movement, Knee Society
score (KSS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form 12 (SF-12) score
and radiological parameters. Meta-regression techniques were used
to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1827 publications, of which 41 studies met
our inclusion criteria, comprising over 6000 TKRs. Meta-analyses
showed no clinically relevant differences in terms of revision rates,
clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between
MB and FB TKRs. It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority
of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice. Cite this article:
