Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fixed versus mobile weight-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

This study was designed to compare clinical, radiological, and general health results of two prostheses (mobile vs. fixed weight-bearing devices) that are used in total knee arthroplasty with a 5-year follow-up.

Methods

This randomized controlled study was conducted from 2004 to 2010 in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at two university hospitals in Isfahan, Iran. Three hundred patients with expected primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) without severe deformity (a fixed varus or valgus deformity greater than 20°) received fixed weight-bearing (n = 150) or mobile weight-bearing (n = 150) devices. Clinical, radiological, and quality of life outcomes were compared between the two groups at six-month intervals for the first year, after which the comparisons were made annually for the next 4 years.

Results

Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Although there was significant improvement in both groups, there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to the means of the Knee Society Scores, which were 92 (SD: 12.1) for the fixed weight-bearing device and 93 (SD: 14.2) for the mobile weight-bearing device (n.s.) at the final follow-up point. Radiographs showed that there was no significant difference in prosthetic alignment and no evidence of loosening. After TKA, the SF-36 score increased in both groups, but there was no statistical difference between the groups in quality of life at the final follow-up (62 (12.2) vs. 64 (14.3), n.s.). There was no revision after 5 years.

Conclusions

In terms of clinical, radiological or general health outcomes for people who underwent TKA, the results of this study showed no clear advantage of mobile weight-bearing over the fixed weight-bearing prosthesis at the five-year follow-up.

Level of evidence

I.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 Arthroplast 20(2):145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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(10):2290–2296

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 466:1959–1965

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1989) New Jersey low contact stress knee replacement system. Ten-year evaluation of meniscal bearings. Orthop Clin N Am 20(2):147–177

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Callaghan JJ, Insall JN, Greenwald AS, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Murray DW, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Dorr LD (2001) Mobile-bearing knee replacement: concepts and results. Instr Course Lect 50:431–449

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Catani F, Benedetti MG, De Felice R, Buzzi R, Giannini S, Aglietti P (2003) Mobile and fixed bearing total knee prosthesis functional comparison during stair climbing. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 18(5):410–418

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Colizza WA, Insall JN, Scuderi GR (1995) The posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis. Assessment of polyethylene damage and osteolysis after a ten-year-minimum follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77(11):1713–1720

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 

  11. Garling EH, Valstar ER, Nelissen RG (2005) Comparison of micromotion in mobile bearing and posterior stabilized total knee prostheses: a randomized RSA study of 40 knees followed for 2 years. Acta Orthop 76(3):353–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Grupp TM, Kaddick C, Schwiesau J, Maas A, Stulberg SD (2009) Fixed and mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty–influence on wear generation, corresponding wear areas, knee kinematics and particle composition. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 24(2):210–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 Arthroplast 24(6 Suppl):24–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 Arthrosc 17(3):237–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

  19. Jacobs WCH, Christen B, Wymenga AB, Schuster A, van der Schaaf DB, Ten Ham A, Wehrli U (2011) Functional performance of mobile versus fixed bearing total knee prostheses: a randomised controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1684-9

  20. Kim BS, Reitman RD, Schai PA, Scott RD (1999) Selective patellar nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. 10 year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 

  22. Kim YH, Kook 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 

  23. Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS (2009) Early outcome of TKA with a medial pivot fixed-bearing prosthesis is worse than with a PFC mobile-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:493–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(3):206–210

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lampe F, Sufi-Siavach A, Bohlen KE, Hille E, Dries SP (2011) One year after navigated total knee replacement, no clinically relevant difference found between fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee replacement in a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Open Orthop J 5:201–208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Luna JT, Sembrano JN, Gioe TJ (2010) Mobile and fixed-bearing (all-polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(Suppl 1 Pt 2):240–249

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. McEwen HM, 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(2):357–365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Merchant AC, Mercer RL, Jacobsen RH, Cool CR (1974) Roentgenographic analysis of patellofemoral congruence. J Bone Joint Surg Am 56(7):1391–1396

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Montazeri A, Goshtasebi A, Vahdaninia M, Gandek B (2005) The Short Form Health Survey (SF-36): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Qual Life Res 14(3):875–882

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. O’Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW (1996) Theory and practice of meniscal knee replacement: designing against wear. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 210(3):217–222

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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 

  33. Ranawat CS, Luessenhop CP, Rodriguez JA (1997) The press-fit condylar modular total knee system. Four-to-six-year results with a posterior-cruciate-substituting design. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79(3):342–348

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Saghaei M (2004) Random allocation software for parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 4:26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sehat K, Devan P, Horne G (2007) Fixed bearing or mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty? A review of the recent literature. Curr Opin Orthop 18:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 Arthroplast 26(8):1205–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Watanabe T, Tomita T, Fujii M, Hashimoto J, Sugamoto K, Yoshikawa H (2005) Comparison between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knees in bilateral total knee replacements. Int Orthop 29(3):179–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 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 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all the staff nurses of the Orthopedic Department at Al-Zahra and Kashani University Hospitals for their valuable help. Also, we are all thankful for the editing assistance that Professor Jagodzinski (Hannover University of Medical Sciences, Germany) provided. This research was supported financially by the Vice-Chancellery of Research at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Research Project No. 187263).

Conflict of interest

All author confirmed that no conflict of interest is existed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Neuroscience Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Jahad Blv, Kerman, Iran

    Hamidreza Shemshaki

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

    Mohammad Dehghani & Mohammad Amin Eshaghi

  3. Medical Student’s Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

    Mahboobe Fereidan Esfahani

Authors
  1. Hamidreza Shemshaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammad Dehghani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Amin Eshaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mahboobe Fereidan Esfahani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamidreza Shemshaki.

Additional information

Clinical Trial Registration: The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01312532).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shemshaki, H., Dehghani, M., Eshaghi, M.A. et al. Fixed versus mobile weight-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20, 2519–2527 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-1946-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-1946-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation