alexa Fixed Versus Mobile Weight-bearing Prosthesis In Total Knee Arthroplasty
ISSN: 2161-0533

Orthopedic & Muscular System: Current Research
Open Access

Like us on:
OMICS International organises 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events every year across USA, Europe & Asia with support from 1000 more scientific Societies and Publishes 700+ Open Access Journals which contains over 50000 eminent personalities, reputed scientists as editorial board members.

Open Access Journals gaining more Readers and Citations

700 Journals and 15,000,000 Readers Each Journal is getting 25,000+ Readers

This Readership is 10 times more when compared to other Subscription Journals (Source: Google Analytics)

Share This Page

Additional Info

Loading Please wait..

2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Orthopedics & Rheumatology
August 19-21, 2013 Embassy Suites Las Vegas, NV, USA

Hamidreza Shemshaki
Accepted Abstracts: Orthop Muscul Syst
DOI: 10.4172/2161-0533.S1.014
Purpose: This study was designed to compare clinical, radiological, and general health results of two prostheses (mobile vs. fixed weight-bearing devices) that are used in total knee arthroplasty with a 5-year follow-up. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted from 2004 to 2010 in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at two university hospitals in Isfahan, Iran. Three hundred patients with expected primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) without severe deformity (a fixed varus or valgus deformity greater than 20) received fixed weight bearing (n=150) or mobile weight- bearing (n=150) devices. Clinical, radiological, and quality of life outcomes were compared between the two groups at six-month intervals for the first year, after which the comparisons were made annually for the next 4 years. Results: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Although there was significant improvement in both groups, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the means of the Knee Society Scores, which were 92 (SD: 12.1) for the fixed weight-bearing device and 93 (SD: 14.2) for the mobile weight-bearing device (n.s.) at the final follow-up point. Radiographs showed that there was no significant difference in prosthetic alignment and no evidence of loosening. After TKA, the SF-36 score increased in both groups, but there was no statistical difference between the groups in quality of life at the final follow-up (62 (12.2) vs. 64 (14.3), n.s). There was no revision after 5 years. Conclusions: In terms of clinical, radiological or general health outcomes for people who underwent TKA, the results of this study showed no clear advantage of mobile weight-bearing over the fixed weight-bearing prosthesis at the five-year follow-up
image PDF   |   image HTML
Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version