Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative analysis between fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty (PFC Sigma) and rotating platform total knee arthroplasty (PFC-RP) with minimum 3-year follow-up

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Since the introduction of mobile bearing total knee designs nearly 30 years back, many studies have been done to evaluate its long-term result. Comparison with fixed bearing designs has been done in the past, but the studies were confounded by variables such as disease, surgeon, bone quality, pain tolerance, etc. We attempt to eliminate these variables in this study.

Methods

A total of 50 patients who had bilateral arthritis of the knee with similar deformity and pre-operative range of motion on both sides agreed to have one knee replaced with mobile bearing total knee design (PFC-RP) and the other with a fixed bearing design (PFC Sigma) were prospectively evaluated. Comparative analysis of both the designs was done at a mean follow-up of 40 months, minimizing patient, surgeon and observer related bias. Clinical and radiographic outcome, survival and complication rates were compared.

Results

At a mean follow-up of 40 months (range 36–47 months), no benefit of mobile bearing (PFC-RP) over fixed bearing design (PFC Sigma) could be demonstrated with respect to Knee Society scores, pain scores, range of flexion, subject preference or patello-femoral complication rates. Radiographs showed no difference in prosthetic alignment. No patient required a revision surgery till last follow-up.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated no advantage of the mobile-bearing arthroplasty over fixed bearing arthroplasty with regard to clinical results at short-term follow-up. However, longer follow-up is necessary to confirm whether these results are sustained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Callaghan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS (1994) Patient outcomes following tricompartmental knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA 271(17):1349–1357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, Scuderi GR, Font-Rodriguez D (1997) Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79-A:575–582

    Google Scholar 

  3. Insall JN, Hood RW, Flawn LB, Sullivan DJ (1983) The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis: a five to nine-year follow-up of the first one hundred consecutive replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65-A:619–628

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ritter M (1998) 15 year results with the AGC knee. Read at the Annual Meeting on Current Concepts in Joint Replacement, Orlando, Florida

  5. Stern SH, Insall JN (1992) Posterior stabilized prosthesis. Results after follow-up of nine to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74-A:980–986

    Google Scholar 

  6. Engh GA (1988) Failure of the polyethylene bearing surface of a total knee replacement within four years. A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70:1093–1096

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bryan RS, Rand JA (1982) Revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:116–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Werner F, Foster D, Murray DG (1978) The influence of design on transmission of torque across knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60A:342–348

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kim YH, Koo HK, Kim JS (2001) Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:101–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 105:197–204

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ranawat CS, Insall J, Shine J (1976) Duo-condylar knee arthroplasty: hospital for special surgery design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 120:76–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Stern SH, Insall JN (1990) Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:1400–1404

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Insall JN, Salvati E (1971) Patella position in normal knee joint. Radiology 101:101–106

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Blackburne JS, Peel TE (1977) A new method of measuring patellar height. J Bone Joint Surg Br 59(2):241–242

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R (2011) Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1205–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kelly NH, Fu RH, Wright TM, Padgett DE (2011) Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):123–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Geiger F, Mau H, Krüger M, Thomsen M (2008) Comparison of a new mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis with a fixed-bearing prosthesis: a matched pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(3):285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Matsuda S, Mizu-uchi H, Fukagawa S, Miura H, Okazaki K, Matsuda H, Iwamoto Y (2010) Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(10):1311–1316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim YH, Choi Y, Kim JS (2010) Osteolysis in well-functioning fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(11):3084–3093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jacobs W, Anderson P, Limbeek J, Wymenga A (2004) Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for total knee arthroplasty for post-operative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD003130

  23. Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS (2007) The long-term results of simultaneous fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements performed in the same patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(10):1317–1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Luring C, Bathis H, Oczipka F, Trepte C, Lufen H, Perlick L, Grifka J (2006) Two-year follow-up on joint stability and muscular function comparing rotating versus fixed bearing TKR. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(7):605–611

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Post ZD, Matar WY, van de Leur T, Grossman EL, Austin MS (2010) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: better than a fixed-bearing? J Arthroplasty 25(6):998–1003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vasdev A, Kumar S, Chadha G, Mandal SP (2009) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in Indian patients. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 17(2):179–182

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wylde V, Learmonth I, Potter A, Bettinson K, Lingard E (2008) Patient-reported outcomes after fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial using the Kinemax total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(9):1172–1179

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim YH, Kim DY, Kim JS (2007) Simultaneous mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee replacement in the same patients. A prospective comparison of mid-term outcomes using a similar design of prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(7):904–910

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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):62–67

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ranawat AS, Rossi R, Loreti I, Rasquina VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS (2004) Comparison of short-tern results of PFC Sigma fixed bearing and rotating platform total knee arthroplasty in same patient. J Arthroplasty 19(1):35–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wohlrab D, Ditl J, Herrschelmann R, Schietsch U, Hein W, Hube R (2005) Does the NexGen LPS flex mobile knee prosthesis offer advantages compared to the NexGen LPS?—a comparison of clinical and radiological results. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 143(5):567–572 (article in German)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Breugem SJ, Sierevelt IN, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Schaap GR, van Dijk CN (2008) Less anterior knee pain with a mobile-bearing prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(8):1959–1965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bhan S, Malhotra R (2003) Results of rotating platform, LCS knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 18(8):1016–1022

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Bhan S, Malhotra R, Krishna Kiran E, Shukla Sourav, Bijjawara Mahesh (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-A:2290–2296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2000) Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. A nine to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 82A:705–711

    Google Scholar 

  36. Huang CH, Ma HM, Liau JJ, Ho FY, Cheng CK (2002) Osteolysis in failed total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knees. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(12):2224–2229

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

No author received any funds or grants for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Room No. 5019, New Delhi, 110029, India

    Akram Jawed, Vijay Kumar, R. Malhotra, C. S. Yadav & S. Bhan

Authors
  1. Akram Jawed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vijay Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. S. Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Bhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akram Jawed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jawed, A., Kumar, V., Malhotra, R. et al. A comparative analysis between fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty (PFC Sigma) and rotating platform total knee arthroplasty (PFC-RP) with minimum 3-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132, 875–881 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1482-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1482-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation