Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1653–1659 | Cite as

No clinical difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study

  • O. BaileyEmail author
  • K. Ferguson
  • E. Crawfurd
  • P. James
  • P. A. May
  • S. Brown
  • M. Blyth
  • W. J. Leach



It is hypothesized that mobile polyethylene bearings in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may confer benefits with regard to range of motion and have improved clinical outcome scores in comparison with an arthroplasty with a fixed-bearing design. Our study compares clinical outcomes between patients who undergo TKA with either a rotating platform or fixed bearing using a posterior cruciate-retaining design.


Three hundred and thirty-one patients were randomized to receive either a rotating-platform (161 patients) or a fixed-bearing (170 patients) implant. All patients were assessed pre-operatively and at 1 and 2 years post-operatively using standard tools (range of movement, Oxford Knee Score, American Knee Society Score, SF12 and Patella Score).


There was no difference in pre- to 2-year post-operative outcomes between the groups with regard to improvement in range of motion (10° ± 16 vs. 9° ± 15), improvement in Oxford Knee Score (−17.6 ± 9.9 vs. −19.1 ± 8.4), improvement in American Knee Society Score (49.5 ± 24.7 vs. 50.7 ± 21.0), function (23.6 ± 19.6 vs. 25.0 ± 22.5) and pain (34.9 ± 16.2 vs. 35.8 ± 14.1) subscores, improvement in SF12 Score (10.0 ± 16.3 vs. 12.3 ± 15.8) or improvement in Patella Score (9.7 ± 7.4 vs. 10.6 ± 7.1).


No difference was demonstrated in clinical outcome between patients with a rotating-platform and fixed-bearing posterior cruciate-retaining TKA at 2-year follow-up.

Level of evidence



Knee Arthroplasty Mobile-bearing Rotating-platform Fixed-bearing 


  1. 1.
    Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, Luca L (2005) Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 20:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Banks S, Bellemans J, Nozaki H, Whiteside LA, Harman M, Hodge WA (2003) Knee motions during maximum flexion in fixed and mobile-bearing arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:131–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF (1996) Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials.The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276:637–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhan S, Malhotra R, Kiran E, 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 87:2290–2296CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatt H, Rambani R, White W, Chakrabarty G (2012) Primary total knee arthroplasty using the P.F.C Sigma®-rotating platform cruciate retaining endoprosthesis—a 6 year follow up. Knee 19:856–859CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 Arthroplast 27:1452–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chouteau J, Lerat JL, Testa R, Moyen B, Fessy MH, Banks SA (2009) Kinematics of a cementless mobile bearing posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee 16:223–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D’Lima DD, Trice M, Urquhart AG, Colwell CW (2001) Tibiofemoral conformity and kinematics of rotating-bearing knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 386:235–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elwood JJ, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Goetz DD (2012) Posterior cruciate-retaining, rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty: minimum 4-year follow-up study. Orthopedics 35:1699–1704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gioe T, Glynn J, Sembrano J, Suthers K, Santos E, Singh J (2009) Mobile and fixed-bearing (all polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs. A prospective randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:2104–2112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haider H, Garvin K (2008) Rotating platform versus fixed-bearing total knees: an in vitro study of wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2677–2685CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamai S, Moro-oka TA, Dunbar NJ, Miura H, Iwamoto Y, Banks SA (2013) In vivo healthy knee kinematics during dynamic full flexion. Biomed Res Int. PMID: 23509767Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrington M, Hopkinson W, Hsu P, Manion L (2009) Fixed-vs mobile- bearing total knee arthroplasty. Does it make a difference?—A prospective randomised study. J Arthroplast 24:24–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 84:2224–2229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jacobs W, Christen B, Wymenga A, Schuster A, Schaaf D, Ham A, Wehrli U (2012) Functional performance of mobile versus fixed bearing total knee prosthesis: a randomised controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1450–1455CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jolles BM, Grzesiak A, Eudier A, Dejnabadi H, Voracek C, Pichonnaz C, Aminian K, Martin E (2012) A randomised controlled clinical trial and gait analysis of fixed-and mobile-bearing total knee replacements with a five-year follow- up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:648–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kalisvaart M, Pagnano M, Trousdale R, Stuart M, Hanssen A (2012) Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: no clinically detectable differences at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:481–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kim D, Seong SC, Lee MC, Lee S (2012) Comparison of the tibiofemoral rotational alignment after mobile and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:337–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim Y-H, Kim J-S, Choe J-W, Kim H-J (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 94:866–873PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 med-term results at 7 years. Knee 15:206–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McEwan HM, Barnett PI, Bell CJ, 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 38:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Namba RS, Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Ake CF, Wang C, Gross TP, Marina-Dabic D, Sedrakyan A (2012) Risk of revision for fixed versus mobile-bearing primary total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1929–1935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nutton RW, Wade FA, Coutts FJ, van der Linden ML (2012) Does a mobile- bearing, high-flexion design increase knee flexion after total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:1051–1057CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Rourke MR, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnson RC (2002) Osteolysis associated with a cemented modular posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee design: five to eight-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:1362–1371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pijls B, Valstar E, Kaptein B, Nelissen R (2012) Differences in long-term fixation between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knee prosthesis at ten to 12 years’ follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:1366–1371CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D, Juszczak E, Carter S, White S, Steiger R, Dodd CAF, Gibbons M, McLardy-Smith P, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2003) A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85:62–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rees JL, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2005) Real in vivo kinematic differences between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 432:204–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rossi R, Bruzzone M, Bonasia DE, Ferro A, Castoldi F (2010) No early tibial tray loosening after surface cementing technique in mobile-bearing TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1360–1365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sawaquchi N, Majima T, Ishiqaki T, Mori N, Terashima T, Minami A (2012) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty improves patellar tracking and patellofemoral contact stress: in vivo measurements in the same patients. J Arthroplasty 25:920–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed N, Davey JR, Gandhi R (2011) Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26:1205–1213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stoner K, Jerabek SA, Tow S, Wright TM, Padgett DE (2013) Rotating-platform has no surface damage advantage over fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:76–85CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Stralen RA, Anderson PG, Wymenga AB (2013) The self-aligning knee prosthesis: clinical and radiological outcome and survival analysis of a cruciate retaining meniscal bearing knee at 10-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc PMID: 23839209Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tibesku CO, Daniilidis K, Skwara A, Dierkes T, Rosenbaum D, Fuchs-Winkelmann S (2011) Gait analysis and electromyography in fixed-and mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a prospective, comparative study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:2052–2059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tibesku CO, Daniilidis K, Vieth V, Skwara A, Heindel W, Fuchs- Winkelmann S (2011) Sagittal plane kinematics of fixed-and mobile-bearing total knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1488–1495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Watanabe T, Ishizuki M, Muneta T, Banks SA (2012) Matched comparison of kinematics in knees with mild and severe varus deformity using fixed-and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech 27:924–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wolterbeek N, Nelissen RG, Valstar ER (2012) No differences in in vivo kinematics between six different types of knee prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:559–564CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Bailey
    • 1
    Email author
  • K. Ferguson
    • 2
  • E. Crawfurd
    • 3
  • P. James
    • 4
  • P. A. May
    • 1
  • S. Brown
    • 3
  • M. Blyth
    • 2
  • W. J. Leach
    • 1
  1. 1.Western InfirmaryGlasgowUK
  2. 2.Royal InfirmaryGlasgowUK
  3. 3.Northampton General HospitalNorthamptonUK
  4. 4.Nottingham City HospitalNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations