Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro kinematics of fixed versus mobile bearing in unicondylar knee arthroplasty

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

Abstract

Purpose

When performing unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA), the surgeon can choose between two fundamentally different designs: a mobile-bearing (MB) inlay with high conformity, or a low-conformity, fixed bearing (FB) inlay. There is an ongoing debate in the orthopaedic community about which design is superior. To date, there have been no comparative biomechanical studies regarding each system’s effects on the quadriceps force and the medial contact pressure. The purpose of this study was to investigate these alterations in vitro before and after UKA with two prosthesis systems, representing the MB and FB designs.

Methods

FB and MB unicondylar knee prosthesis designs were tested in sequence under isokinetic extension in an in vitro simulator. In each case, the required quadriceps extension force was determined before and after implantation of a medial UKA. Furthermore, the tibiofemoral contact pressures were evaluated for both prosthesis designs.

Results

The quadriceps force maximum was achieved at 106° and 104° of flexion with the FB and MB designs, respectively. Implantation of the FB UKA resulted in a significant increase in the necessary maximum quadriceps force (p = 0.006). In addition, implantation of the MB UKA resulted in a significantly higher extension force (p = 0.03). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant in deep flexion (p = 0.03), with higher forces in MB UKA.

Conclusion

The MB design showed significantly increased quadriceps extension force compared with the FB inlay in deep flexion. Although the FB design showed higher maximum peak pressures concentrated on a smaller area, the pressure introduction in deep flexion was lower, compared to MB inserts.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Becher C, Huber R, Thermann H, Tibesku CO, von Skrbensky G (2009) Tibiofemoral contact mechanics with a femoral resurfacing prosthesis and a non-functional meniscus. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24(8):648–654. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Biau DJ, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS, Masri BA (2013) No difference in quality-of-life outcomes after mobile and fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Arthroplasty 28(2):220.e1–226.e1. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.05.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonutti PM, Dethmers DA (2008) Contemporary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: fixed vs mobile bearing. J Arthroplasty 23(7 Suppl):24–27. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brockett CL, Jennings LM, Fisher J (2011) The wear of fixed and mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 225(5):511–519

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burton A, Williams S, Brockett CL, Fisher J (2012) In vitro comparison of fixed- and mobile meniscal-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties: effect of design, kinematics, and condylar liftoff. J Arthroplasty 27(8):1452–1459. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Cerveri P, De Momi E (2009) Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 129(9):1157–1163. doi:10.1007/s00402-008-0713-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daniilidis K, Holl S, Gosheger G, Dieckmann R, Martinelli N, Ostermeier S, Tibesku CO (2013) Femoro-tibial kinematics after TKA in fixed- and mobile-bearing knees in the sagittal plane. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2392–2397. doi:10.1007/s00167-012-1986-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dürselen L, Claes L, Kiefer H (1995) The influence of muscle forces and external loads on cruciate ligament strain. Am J Sports Med 23(1):129–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (2014) Unicondylar arthroplasty in knees with deficient anterior cruciate ligaments. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):73–77. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-2982-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Felts E, Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2010) Function and quality of life following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients 60 years of age or younger. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(8):861–867. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2010.05.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH (2004) Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee 11(5):379–384. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harrington MA, Hopkinson WJ, Hsu P, Manion L (2009) Fixed- vs mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: does it make a difference? A prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):24–27. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hatfield GL, Hubley-Kozey CL, Astephen Wilson JL, Dunbar MJ (2011) The effect of total knee arthroplasty on knee joint kinematics and kinetics during gait. J Arthroplasty 26(2):309–318. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.03.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Heyse TJ, Becher C, Kron N, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Schofer MD, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Tibesku CO (2010) Quadriceps force in relation of intrinsic anteroposterior stability of TKA design. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(1):1–9. doi:10.1007/s00402-009-0927-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Heyse TJ, Becher C, Kron N, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Schofer MD, Tibesku CO, Fuchs-Winkelmann S (2010) Patellofemoral pressure after TKA in vitro: highly conforming vs. posterior stabilized inlays. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(2):191–196. doi:10.1007/s00402-009-0920-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Insall J, Aglietti P (1980) A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 62(8):1329–1337

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacobs WC, Christen B, Wymenga AB, Schuster A, van der Schaaf DB, ten Ham A, Wehrli U (2012) Functional performance of mobile versus fixed bearing total knee prostheses: a randomised controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(8):1450–1455. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1684-9

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kwon OR, Kang KT, Son J, Kwon SK, Jo SB, Suh DS, Choi YJ, Kim HJ, Koh YG (2014) Biomechanical comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing for unicomparmental knee arthroplasty using finite element analysis. J Orthop Res 35(2):338–345. doi:10.1002/jor.22499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D (2006) Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee 13(5):365–370. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2006.05.003

  20. Murray DW, Pandit H, Weston-Simons JS, Jenkins C, Gill HS, Lombardi AV, Dodd CA, Berend KR (2013) Does body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement? Knee 20(6):461–465. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2012.09.017

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ostermeier S, Friesecke C, Fricke S, Hurschler C, Stukenborg-Colsman C (2008) Quadriceps force during knee extension after non-hinged and hinged TKA: an in vitro study. Acta Orthop 79(1):34–38. doi:10.1080/17453670710014734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Stukenborg-Colsman C (2004) Quadriceps function after TKA: an in vitro study in a knee kinematic simulator. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19(3):270–276. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.11.006

  23. Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, Stukenborg-Colsman C (2006) In vitro investigation of the influence of tibial slope on quadriceps extension force after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(10):934–939. doi:10.1007/s00167-006-0078-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ostermeier S, Stukenborg-Colsman C (2011) Quadriceps force after TKA with femoral single radius. Acta Orthop 82(3):339–343. doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.574564

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Palmer SH, Morrison PJ, Ross AC (1998) Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 350:143–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST (2009) Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95(8):599–605. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sun PF, Jia YH (2012) Mobile bearing UKA compared to fixed bearing TKA: a randomized prospective study. Knee 19(2):103–106. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2011.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2010. Lund

  29. van den Heever DJ, Scheffer C, Erasmus P, Dillon E (2011) Contact stresses in a patient-specific unicompartmental knee replacement. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 26 (2):159–166. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2010.09.007

  30. Zeng Y, Shen B, Yang J, Zhou ZK, Kang PD, Pei FX (2013) Is there reduced polyethylene wear and longer survival when using a replacement? A meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Bone Joint J 95-B (8):1057–1063. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31310

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Orthopaedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von_Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany

    Max Ettinger, Johanna Marie Zoch, Christoph Becher, Christina Stukenborg-Colsman, Leif Claassen, Sven Ostermeier & Tilman Calliess

  2. Orthopädische Praxis und Gelenk-Klinik Gundelfingen, Gundelfingen, Germany

    Sven Ostermeier

  3. Laboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Hannover Medical School, Hanover, Germany

    Christof Hurschler

Authors
  1. Max Ettinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanna Marie Zoch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christoph Becher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christof Hurschler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christina Stukenborg-Colsman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Leif Claassen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sven Ostermeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tilman Calliess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Max Ettinger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ettinger, M., Zoch, J.M., Becher, C. et al. In vitro kinematics of fixed versus mobile bearing in unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135, 871–877 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2214-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2214-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation