Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

No difference in joint awareness after mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the patients ability to forget the artificial knee joint in everyday life who were randomized to be operated for mobile- or fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

This single-center randomized controlled trial evaluated the 3-year follow-up of the cemented mobile- and fixed-bearing TKA from the same brand in a series of 41 patients. Clinical examination was during the pre-, 6-week, 6-month, 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-up containing multiple patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the 12-item Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) at 3 years. Effect size was calculated for each PROM at 3-year follow-up to quantify the size of the difference between both bearings.

Results

At 3-year follow-up, general linear mixed model analysis showed that there were no significant or clinically relevant differences between the two groups for all outcome measures. Calculated effect sizes were small (<0.3) for all the PROMs except for the FJS-12; these were moderate (0.5).

Conclusion

The results of this study demonstrate that joint awareness was slightly lower in patients operated with the MB TKA with comparable improved clinical outcome and PROMs at 3-year follow-up. Measuring joint awareness with the FJS-12 is useful and provides more stringent information at 3-year follow-up compared to other PROMs and should be the PROM of choice at each follow-up after TKA.

Level of evidence

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1990) Long-term survivorship analysis of cruciate-sparing versus cruciate-sacrificing knee prostheses using meniscal bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res 260:162–169

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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 Joint Surg Am 94(10):866–873. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ (1993) Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty: a 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:94–102

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cross M, Parish E (2005) J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(8):1073–1078

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Duffy GP, Murray BE, Trousdale RR (2007) Hybrid total knee arthroplasty. Analysis of component failures at an average of 15 years. J Arthroplasty 22(8):1112–1115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ball ST, Sanchez HB, Mahoney OM, Schmalzried TP (2011) Fixed versus rotating platform total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. J Arthroplasty 26(4):531–536. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Collier MB, Engh CA Jr, McAuley JP, Ginn SD, Engh GA (2005) Osteolysis after total knee arthroplasty: influence of tibial baseplate surface finish and sterilization of polyethylene insert. Findings at five to ten years postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(12):2702–2708

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gioe TJ, Glynn J, Sembrano J, Suthers K, Santos ER, Singh J (2009) Mobile and fixed-bearing (all-polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs. A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(9):2104–2112. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mikulak SA, Mahoney OM, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP (2001) Loosening and osteolysis with the press-fit condylar posterior-cruciate substituting total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(3):398–403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Callaghan JJ (2001) Mobile-bearing knee replacement: clinical results: a review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:221–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Henricson A, Dalén T, Nilsson KG (2006) Mobile bearings do not improve fixation in cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 448:114–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Huang C-H, Liau J-J, Cheng C-K (2007) Fixed or mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2:1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Garling EH, van Eck M, Wedding T, Veeger DJ, Valstar ER, Nelissen RG (2005) Increased muscle activity to stabilise mobile bearing knees in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Knee 12(3):177–182. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2004.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Delport HP, Banks SA, De Schepper J, Bellemans J (2006) A kinematic comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(8):1016–1021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27:430–436. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schotanus MG, Pilot P, Kaptein BL, Draijer WF, Tilman PB, Vos R, Kort NP (2016) No difference in terms of radiostereometric analysis between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4138-6

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  18. Haverkamp D, Breugem SJ, Sierevelt IN, Blankevoort L, van Dijk CN (2005) Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford 12-item knee questionnaire for knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 76(3):347–352

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, Willems WJ, Heyligers IC, Voaklander DC, Kelly KD, Suarez-Almazor ME (2004) Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 63:36–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ, Bershadsky B, Ghomrawi HM, White LE, Buyea CM, Krackow KA (2005) Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale. Use for patients treated with revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(9):1985–1994. doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02564

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27(Suppl):178–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. DeSouza CM, Legedza AT, Sankoh AJ (2009) An overview of practical approaches for handling missing data in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 19(6):1055–1073. doi:10.1080/10543400903242795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hopley CDJ, Crossett LS, Chen AF (2013) Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship after total knee arthroplasty using a rotating platform knee prosthesis: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 28(1):68–77. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.04.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Thienpont E, Zorman D (2016) Higher forgotten joint score for fixed-bearing than for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(8):2641–2645. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3663-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rolfson O, Malchau H (2015) The use of patient-reported outcomes after routine arthroplasty. Beyond the whys and ifs. Bone Joint J 97-B:578–581. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B5.35356

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM (2014) Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22(2):184–189. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Location Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands

    M. G. M. Schotanus & N. P. Kort

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Hospital, Delft, The Netherlands

    P. Pilot

  3. Department of Methodology and Statistics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    R. Vos

Authors
  1. M. G. M. Schotanus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. Pilot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Vos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. P. Kort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. G. M. Schotanus.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

One author (NK) is a paid consultant for Zimmer Biomet, Europe. Other author (PP) is currently a paid employee of Zimmer Biomet. This was not the case when the study was set up. The other authors certify that they have no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest and patent/licensing arrangements) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schotanus, M.G.M., Pilot, P., Vos, R. et al. No difference in joint awareness after mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27, 1151–1155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1921-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1921-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation