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 7/2014

01-07-2014 | Knee

In vivo kinematics comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty during deep knee bending motion

Authors: Xiaojun Shi, Bin Shen, Jing Yang, Pengde Kang, Zongke Zhou, Fuxing Pei

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 7/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The in vivo kinematics of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee prostheses remains unclear, particularly for knee flexion over 120°. The purpose of this study was to compare the in vivo kinematics of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized prosthesis during deep knee bending with knee flexion exceeding 120° under weight-bearing conditions.

Methods

In vivo kinematics was analysed for 20 patients implanted with either a fixed-bearing posterior-stabilized or mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized prosthesis. Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient performed weight-bearing deep knee bending. Motion between each component was analysed using a two- to three-dimensional registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design models to reproduce the spatial positions of the femoral and tibial components from single-view fluoroscopic images.

Results

Patients who had fixed-bearing prostheses experienced posterior femoral rollback at a mean of 1.4 mm (SD 1.6) of the medial condyle, whereas patients who had mobile-bearing prostheses experienced 0.8 mm (SD 1.2). The posterior femoral rollback of the femoral lateral condyle in patients with a fixed-bearing prosthesis was a mean of 6.4 mm (SD 1.7) motion in the posterior direction, whereas patients who had a mobile-bearing prosthesis had 6.5 mm (SD 2.4) motion. The mean tibial internal rotation was 7.5° (SD 2.1) for fixed-bearing prosthesis and 9.2° (SD 3.2) for mobile-bearing prosthesis.

Conclusions

The present results demonstrated that the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized designs had similar posterior condylar translation and tibial axial rotation during weight-bearing deep knee flexion exceeding 120°.

Level of evidence

Retrospective comparative study, Level III.
Literature
1.
Argenson JNA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz M, Walker SA, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA (2004) A high flexion total knee arthroplasty design replicates healthy knee motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:174–179PubMedCrossRef
2.
Asano T, Akagi M, Tanaka K, Tamura J, Nakamura T (2001) In vivo three dimensional knee kinematics using a biplanar image-matching techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 338:157–166CrossRef
3.
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 Relat Res 410:131–138PubMedCrossRef
4.
Banks SA, Harman MK, Bellemans J, Hodge WA (2003) Making sense of knee arthroplasty kinematics: news you can use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:64–72PubMed
5.
Banks SA, Hodge WA (2004) 2003 Hap Paul Award Paper of the international Society for Technology in Arthroplasty. Design and activity dependence of kinematics in fixed and mobile-bearing knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 19:809–816PubMedCrossRef
6.
Banks SA, Hodge WA (2004) Implant design affects knee arthroplasty kinematics during stair-stepping. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:187–193PubMedCrossRef
7.
Bartel DL, Rawlinson JJ, Burstein AH, Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr (1995) Stresses in polyethylene components of contemporary total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 317:76–82PubMed
8.
Bhan S, Malhotra R, Kiran EK, Shukla S, Bijjawara M (2005) A comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:2290–2296PubMedCrossRef
9.
Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1989) New Jersey low contact stress knee replacement system. Ten-year evaluation of meniscal bearings. Orthop Clin North Am 20:147–177PubMed
10.
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 105:197–204PubMedCrossRef
11.
Catani F, Fantozzi S, Ensini A, Leardini A, Moschella D, Giannini S (2006) Influence of tibial component posterior slope on in vivo knee kinematics in fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 24:581–587PubMedCrossRef
12.
Delport HP, Banks SA, Schepper JD, Bellemans J (2006) A kinematics comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1016–1021PubMedCrossRef
13.
Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR (2003) In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of fixed- bearing total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:114–130PubMedCrossRef
14.
Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Outten JT, Sharma A (2005) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Do the polyethylene bearings rotate? Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:88–95PubMedCrossRef
15.
Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB (2003) Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:37–57PubMedCrossRef
16.
Engh GA, Zimmerman RL, Parks NL, Engh CA (2009) Analysis of wear in retrieved mobile and fixed bearing knee inserts. J Arthroplasty 24:28–32PubMedCrossRef
17.
Futai K, Tomita T, Yamazaki T, Tamaki M, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2011) In vivo kinematics of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty during deep knee bending under weight-bearing conditions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:914–920PubMedCrossRef
18.
Haas BD, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Aderon DT, Northcut EJ (2002) Kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate sacrifice versus substitution in a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:685–692PubMedCrossRef
19.
Harrington MA, Hopkinson WJ, Hsu P, Manion L (2009) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: does it make a difference? a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24:24–27PubMedCrossRef
20.
Hasegawa M, Sudo A, Uchida A (2009) Staged bilateral mobile-bearing and fixed- bearing total knee arthroplasty in the same patients: a prospective comparison of a posterior-stabilized prosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Atrhrosc 17:237–243CrossRef
21.
Heinert G, Kendoff D, Preiss S, Gehrke T, Sussmann P (2011) Patellofemoral kinematics in mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing posterior stabilised total knee replacements: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:967–972PubMedCrossRef
22.
Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MA (2000) Tibiofemoral movement 1: the shapes and relative movements of the femur and tibia in the unloaded cadaver knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:1189–1195PubMedCrossRef
23.
Kelly NH, Fu RH, Wright TM, Padget DE (2011) Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:123–130PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
24.
Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M (2003) In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of the normal human knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:69–81PubMedCrossRef
25.
Liu F, Ohdera T, Miyamoto H, Wasielewski RC, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR (2009) In vivo kinematic determination of total knee arthroplasty from squatting to standing. Knee 16:116–120PubMedCrossRef
26.
Mahfouz MR, Hoff WA, Komistek RD, Dennis DA (2003) A robust method for registration of three-dimensional knee implant models to two-dimensional fluoroscopy images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:1561–1574PubMedCrossRef
27.
Mahoney OM, Kinsey TL, Banks AZ, Banks SA (2009) Rotational kinematics of a modern fixed-bearing posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:641–645PubMedCrossRef
28.
Malviya A, Lingard EA, Weir DJ, Deehan DJ (2009) Predicting range of movement after knee replacement: the importance of posterior condylar offset and tibial slope. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:491–498PubMedCrossRef
29.
Massin P, Gournay A (2006) Optimization of the posterior condylar offset, tibial slope, and condylar roll-back in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:889–896PubMedCrossRef
30.
Matsuda S, White SE, Williams VG II, McCarthy DS, Whiteside LA (1998) Contact stress analysis in meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:699–706PubMedCrossRef
31.
McEwen HMC, Barnett PI, Bell CJ, Farrar R, Auger DD, Stone MH, Fisher J (2005) The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech 38:357–365PubMedCrossRef
32.
Mizu-uchi H, Colwell CW, Matsuda S, Flores-Hernandez C, Iwamoto Y (2011) Effect of total knee arthroplasty implant position on flexion angle before implant-bone impingement. J Arthroplasty 26:721–727PubMedCrossRef
33.
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 Relat Res 416:197–207PubMedCrossRef
34.
Oh KJ, Paudher DS, Lee SH, Sung Joon SD Jr, Lee ST (2009) Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:873–884PubMedCrossRef
35.
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 Relat Res 418:184–190PubMedCrossRef
36.
Shi K, Hayashida K, Umeda N, Yamamoto K, Kawai H (2008) Kinematic comparison between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing inserts in NexGen Legacy posterior stabilized flex total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:164–169PubMedCrossRef
37.
Stiehl JB, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Keblish PA (1997) In vivo kinematic analysis of a mobile bearing total knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 345:60–66PubMedCrossRef
38.
Tamaki M, Tomita T, Watanabe T, Yamazaki T, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2009) In vivo kinematic analysis of a high-flexion, posterior-stabilized, mobile-bearing knee prosthesis in deep knee bending motion. J Arthroplasty 24:972–978PubMedCrossRef
39.
Victor J, Mueller JK, Komistek RD, Sharma A, Nadaud MC, Bellemans J (2010) In vivo kinematics after cruciate-substituting TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:807–814PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
40.
Wolterbeek N, Nelissen R, Valstar E (2012) No differences in in vivo kinematics between six different types of knee prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:559–564PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
41.
Yoshiya S, Matsui N, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M, Kurosaka M (2005) In vivo kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasties under passive and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty 20:777–783PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
In vivo kinematics comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty during deep knee bending motion
Authors
Xiaojun Shi
Bin Shen
Jing Yang
Pengde Kang
Zongke Zhou
Fuxing Pei
Publication date
01-07-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 7/2014
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2333-7

Other articles of this Issue 7/2014

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 7/2014 Go to the issue

Knee

The difficult diagnosis of cartilaginous tibial eminence fractures in young children

Knee

MRI analysis of single-, double-, and triple-bundle anterior cruciate ligament grafts

Knee

Transparent 3-dimensional CT in evaluation of femoral bone tunnel communication after ACL double-bundle reconstruction: comparison between outside-in and transportal technique

Knee

Intra-articular hylastan versus steroid for knee osteoarthritis

Knee

Knee rotation influences the femoral tunnel angle measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a 3-dimensional computed tomography model study

Knee

Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid for the reduction in joint adhesion formation in a rabbit model of knee injury