Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2006

01-10-2006 | Knee

Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term comparative clinical results of 216 prostheses

Authors: D. Biau, M. M. Mullins, T. Judet, P. Piriou

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 10/2006

Login to get access

Abstract

Since the late 1970s, mobile-bearing total knee designs have been advocated as having theoretical advantages over fixed-bearing total knee replacements. At present there is no consensus as to whether there are any differences in clinical results between the two designs. We present the results of two consecutive cohorts each of over 100 prosthesis. The first cohort underwent a fixed-bearing prosthesis, whilst the second cohort received the mobile bearing variant of the same prosthesis. Both groups were assessed pre- and post-operatively using the American Knee Society knee and function scores as well as range of movement and the presence or absence of anterior knee pain. No difference was found statistically significant between the groups, either for the knee score (P=0.068), the function score (P=0.26), the range of movement (P=0.11) or the proportions of anterior knee pain (P=0.06). It is our opinion that mobile bearing knee prosthesis have still to prove their theoretical advantages in clinical practice
Literature
1.
Banks S, Bellemans J, Nozaki H, Whiteside LA, Harman M, Hodge WA (2003) Knee motions during maximum flexion in fixed and mobile-bearing arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 410:131–138PubMed
2.
Barrack RL, Schrader T, Bertot AJ, Wolfe MW, Myers L (2001) Component rotation and anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 392:46–55PubMed
3.
Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ, Thompson WH, Crossett LS (1993) Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop 286:40–47PubMed
4.
Bert JM (1990) Dislocation/subluxation of meniscal bearing elements after New Jersey low-contact stress total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 254:211–215PubMed
5.
Briard JL, Hungerford DS (1989) Patellofemoral instability in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 4(Suppl):S87–S97PubMed
6.
Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1986) The New Jersey Low-Contact-Stress Knee Replacement System: biomechanical rationale and review of the first 123 cemented cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 105(4):197–204CrossRefPubMed
7.
Cheng CK, Huang CH, Liau JJ (2003) The influence of surgical malalignment on the contact pressures of fixed and mobile bearing knee prostheses—a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 18(3):231–236CrossRef
8.
Chiu KY, Ng TP, Tang WM, Lam P (2001) Bilateral total knee arthroplasty: one mobile-bearing and one fixed-bearing. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 9(1):45–50
9.
Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB (2003) Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 416:37–57PubMed
10.
D’Lima DD, Trice M, Urquhart AG, Colwell CW Jr (2000) Comparison between the kinematics of fixed and rotating bearing knee prostheses. Clin Orthop 380:151–157PubMed
11.
Elias JJ, Kumagai M, Mitchell I, Mizuno Y, Mattessich SM, Webb JD, Chao EY (2002) In vitro kinematic patterns are similar for a fixed platform and a mobile bearing prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 17(4):467–474CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop 248:9–12PubMed
13.
Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60(B3):358–369PubMed
14.
Grelsamer RP, Bazos AN, Proctor CS (1993) Radiographic analysis of patellar tilt. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(5):822–824PubMed
15.
Grodzki T, Haak H, Behrendt R, Merk H, Krauspe R, Behrent R (2001) Prospective randomized comparative study of early functional outcome of 2 knee joint endoprosthesis systems–rotation plateau versus fixed polyethylene inlay. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 139(5):393–396CrossRefPubMed
16.
Haas B, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Brumley JT II, Hammill C (2001) Range of motion of posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee replacements: the effect of bearing mobility. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83A(Suppl 2-Pt 1):51–55
17.
Haas BD, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Anderson DT, Northcut EJ (2002) Kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate sacrifice versus substitution in a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(6):685–692CrossRefPubMed
18.
Higashijima K, Ishida A, Fukuoka Y, Hoshino A, Minamitani H (2002) Kinematic analysis of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knee prostheses by simulation. Med Biol Eng Comput 40(1):22–28CrossRefPubMed
19.
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 248:13–14PubMed
20.
Kienapfel H, Springorum HP, Ziegler A, Klose KJ, Georg C, Griss P (2003) Effect of rotation of the femoral and tibial components on patellofemoral malalignment in knee arthroplasty. Orthopade 32(4):312–318CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kim YH, Kook HK, Kim JS (2001) Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 392:101–115PubMed
22.
Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM (2000) The reliability of the American Knee Society Score. Acta Orthop Scand 71(6):603–608CrossRefPubMed
23.
Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K, Hirata G, Iwamoto Y (2001) Effect of femoral and tibial component position on patellar tracking following total knee arthroplasty: 10-year follow-up of Miller-Galante I knees. Am J Knee Surg 14(3):152–156PubMed
24.
Most E, Li G, Schule S, Sultan P, Park SE, Zayontz S, Rubash HE (2003) The kinematics of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 416:197–207PubMed
25.
Nagamine R, Whiteside LA, White SE, McCarthy DS (1994) Patellar tracking after total knee arthroplasty. The effect of tibial tray malrotation and articular surface configuration. Clin Orthop 304:262–271PubMed
26.
Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D, Juszczak E, Carter S, White S, de Steiger R, Dodd CA, Gibbons M, McLardy-Smith P, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2003) A mobile- bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(1):62–67CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ranawat AS, Rossi R, Loreti I, Rasquinha VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS (2004) Comparison of the PFC Sigma fixed-bearing and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty in the same patient: short-term results. J Arthroplasty 19(1):35–39CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ranawat CS, Komistek RD, Rodriguez JA, Dennis DA, Anderle M (2004) In vivo kinematics for fixed and mobile-bearing posterior stabilized knee prostheses. Clin Orthop 418:184–190PubMed
29.
Stukenborg-Colsman C, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Wirth CJ (2002) Tibiofemoral contact stress after total knee arthroplasty: comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing inlay designs. Acta Orthop Scand 73(6):638–646CrossRefPubMed
30.
Waters TS, Bentley G (2003) Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective a prospective, randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85A(2):212–7
31.
Weale AE, Feikes J, Prothero D, O’Connor JJ, Murray D, Goodfellow J (2002) In vitro evaluation of the resistance to dislocation of a meniscal-bearing total knee prosthesis between 30 degrees and 90 degrees of knee flexion. J Arthroplasty 17(4):475–483CrossRefPubMed
32.
Weaver JK, Derkash RS, Greenwald AS (1993) Difficulties with bearing dislocation and breakage using a movable bearing total knee replacement system. Clin Orthop 290:244–252PubMed
33.
Woolson ST, Northrop GD (2004) Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiologic study. J Arthroplasty 19(2):135–140CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term comparative clinical results of 216 prostheses
Authors
D. Biau
M. M. Mullins
T. Judet
P. Piriou
Publication date
01-10-2006
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 10/2006
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-006-0070-5

Other articles of this Issue 10/2006

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 10/2006 Go to the issue

Sports Medicine

Reconstruction of a chronic quadriceps tendon tear in a body builder

Editorial

Osteoarthritis of the knee in the young and active

Knee

Navigated open-wedge high tibial osteotomy: advantages and disadvantages compared to the conventional technique in a cadaver study

Knee

Anatomic variations of the shape of the menisci: a neonatal cadaver study

Sports Medicine

Factors affecting return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon and hamstring graft: a prospective clinical investigation

Letter to the Editor

Reply to the letter by O. Cebesoy et al. on our publication “Primary stability of four different implants for opening wedge high tibial osteotomy”