Abstract
Aims
To prospectively compare long-term clinical and radiological outcomes following a cruciate retaining fixed-bearing (FB) and a mobile-bearing (MB) primary total knee replacement (TKR).
Methods
We prospectively reviewed 113 TKRs in 99 patients (14 bilateral) with a PFC sigma cruciate retaining rotating platform system, at an average follow-up of 11.1 years (range 10–12). Results were contrasted with those from 89 TKRs in 72 patients (17 bilateral) with a PFC sigma cruciate fixed-bearing prosthesis, at an average follow-up of 12.1 years (range 10–14.1). Outcomes collected included pre- and post-operative range of motion, Oxford Knee Scores, complications encountered, as well as radiographical assessments of polyethylene wear.
Results
In the MB group, mean Oxford Knee Scores improved from 16 pre-operatively to 42 at final follow-up. The mean range of motion was 115° (75–130). In the FB group, mean Oxford Knee Scores improved from 16.2 pre-operatively to 42.5 at final follow-up. The mean range of motion was 111.2 (80–135) degrees at final follow-up.
Conclusion
We failed to elicit an objectively demonstrable clinical difference between the MB- and FB-implanted knees. Similarly, radiological benefits of the MB implants with regard to polyethylene wear were not evident at a minimum 10-year follow-up.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 Jt Surg Am 87:2290–2296
Kim YH, Kim JS, Choe JW, Kim HJ (2012) Long-term comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements in patients younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:866–873
Callaghan JJ, Insall JN, Greenwald AS et al (2001) Mobile-bearing knee replacement: concepts and results. Instr Course Lect 50:431–449
Argenson JN, Parratte S, Ashour A, Saintmard B, Aubaniac JM (2012) The outcome of rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty with cement at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:638–644
Bhatt H, Rambani R, White W, Chakrabarty G (2012) Primary total knee arthroplasty using the P.F.C Sigma(R)-rotating platform cruciate retaining endoprosthesis—a 6 year follow up. Knee. 19:856–859
Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, De Luca L (2005) Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 20:145–153
Geiger F, Mau H, Kruger 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 128:285–291
Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D et al (2003) A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Br 85:62–67
Ladermann A, Lubbeke A, Stern R, Riand N, Fritschy D (2008) Fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised, clinical and radiological study with mid-term results at 7 years. Knee 15:206–210
Zeng Y, Shen B, Yang J et al (2013) Is there reduced polyethylene wear and longer survival when using a mobile-bearing design in total knee replacement? A meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Bone Jt J 95-b:1057–1063
Bartel DL, Bicknell VL, Wright TM (1986) The effect of conformity, thickness, and material on stresses in ultra-high molecular weight components for total joint replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 68:1041–1051
McEwen HM, Barnett PI, Bell CJ et al (2005) The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech 38:357–365
D’Lima DD, Trice M, Urquhart AG, Colwell CW Jr (2001) Tibiofemoral conformity and kinematics of rotating-bearing knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 386:235–242
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 26:1205–1213
Fransen BL, van Duijvenbode DC, Hoozemans MJ, Burger BJ (2016) No differences between fixed-and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [Epub ahead of print]
Jordan LR, Olivo JL, Voorhorst PE (1997) Survivorship analysis of cementless meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 338:119–123
Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ, D’Alessio J (2001) Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:41–50
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our research nurses Jane Cash and Lynn Bartholomew, for their hard work and dedication in following patients and collecting data. Without their help, this study would not have come to fruition.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Riaz, O., Aqil, A., Sisodia, G. et al. P.F.C Sigma® cruciate retaining fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty: a prospective comparative study with minimum 10-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27, 1145–1149 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1920-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1920-1