# BEST PROSTHESIS FOR UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROSIS: FIXED OR MOBILE?

## TL;DR

This study compared fixed and mobile-bearing knee implants for unicompartmental knee arthritis but found no clear winner in terms of function, pain, or quality of life after two years.

## Contribution

The study highlights the lack of conclusive evidence and calls for standardized long-term research to guide clinical decisions.

## Key findings

- No evidence supports the superiority of fixed or mobile-bearing implants in post-op function or pain after 2 years.
- Variability in assessment tools complicates comparisons between implant types.
- Long-term, multicenter studies are urgently needed to resolve uncertainties.

## 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.