To compare the implant position and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) regarding joint awareness using the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) following between fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with a minimum of five years’ follow-up.
One hundred fifteen consecutive UKAs (58 FB UKAs and 57 MB UKAs) performed were retrospectively evaluated. We compared the radiographic parameters including component positions and relationships as well as lower extremity alignment. Post-operative clinical outcomes were assessed using Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Tegner activity score, and FJS.
The MB UKA group showed more convergent componentry relationship between femoral and tibial components (p < 0.001). The joint line of the MB UKA group was restored significantly better (p < 0.05). In addition, the positioning of femoral and tibial components of the MB UKA group showed less deviation from the weight-bearing line (WBL) (p < 0.05). Although there were no differences in KSS, WOMAC, and Tegner activity scores between the groups, the MB UKA group showed significantly better FJS than did the FB UKA group at five years post-operatively (p < 0.05).
The MB UKA group had a more convergent componentry relationship, less deviation from WBL, better joint-line restoration, and reduced joint awareness than did the FB UKA group at five years follow-up.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Peersman G, Stuyts B, Vandenlangenbergh T, Cartier P, Fennema P (2015) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:3296–3305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3131-1
Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST (2009) Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:599–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006
Baur J, Zwicky L, Hirschmann MT, Ilchmann T, Clauss M (2015) Metal backed fixed-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties using minimal invasive surgery: a promising outcome analysis of 132 cases. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0651-x
Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14:154–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2006.11.012
Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C (2004) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartimental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score. Knee 11:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.01.003
Emerson RH Jr, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res 62–70
Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH (2004) Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee 11:379–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.006
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 13:365–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2006.05.003
Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN (2012) No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:61–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1961-4
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 Arthroplast 27:430–436.e431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035
Carr A, Keyes G, Miller R, O'Connor J, Goodfellow J (1993) Medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. A survival study of the Oxford meniscal knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 205–213
Koh IJ, Kim JH, Jang SW, Kim MS, Kim C, In Y (2016) Are the Oxford((R)) medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty new instruments reducing the bearing dislocation risk while improving components relationships? A case control study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102:183–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.11.015
Herry Y, Batailler C, Lording T, Servien E, Neyret P, Lustig S (2017) Improved joint-line restitution in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a robotic-assisted surgical technique. Int Orthop 41:2265–2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3633-9
Goodfellow JW, Tibrewal SB, Sherman KP, O'Connor JJ (1987) Unicompartmental Oxford Meniscal knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 2:1–9
Gulati A, Pandit H, Jenkins C, Chau R, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2009) The effect of leg alignment on the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91:469–474. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.91b4.22105
Kim KT, Lee S, Lee JI, Kim JW (2016) Analysis and treatment of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 28:46–54. https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2016.28.1.46
Thienpont E, Opsomer G, Koninckx A, Houssiau F (2014) Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the Forgotten Joint score. J Arthroplast 29:48–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.024
Artz NJ, Hassaballa MA, Robinson JR, Newman JH, Porteous AJ, Murray JR (2015) Patient reported kneeling ability in fixed and mobile bearing knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 30:2159–2163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.063
Heyse TJ, El-Zayat BF, De Corte R, Chevalier Y, Scheys L, Innocenti B, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Labey L (2014) UKA closely preserves natural knee kinematics in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1902–1910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2752-0
Peersman G, Slane J, Vuylsteke P, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Dworschak P, Heyse T, Scheys L (2017) Kinematics of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to native: results from an in vitro study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1557–1563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2794-8
Dao Trong ML, Diezi C, Goerres G, Helmy N (2015) Improved positioning of the tibial component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with patient-specific cutting blocks. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1993–1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2839-2
Kang KT, Son J, Kwon SK, Kwon OR, Koh YG (2018) Preservation of femoral and tibial coronal alignment to improve biomechanical effects of medial unicompartment knee arthroplasty: computational study. Biomed Mater Eng 29:651–664. https://doi.org/10.3233/bme-181015
Innocenti B, Pianigiani S, Ramundo G, Thienpont E (2016) Biomechanical effects of different varus and valgus alignments in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 31:2685–2691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.006
Riviere C, Harman C, Leong A, Cobb J, Maillot C (2019) Kinematic alignment technique for medial OXFORD UKA: an in-silico study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 105:63–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.11.005
Kuroda Y, Takayama K, Ishida K, Hayashi S, Hashimoto S, Tsubosaka M, Matsushita T, Niikura T, Nishida K, Kuroda R, Matsumoto T (2018) Medial joint line elevation of the tibia measured during surgery has a significant correlation with the limb alignment changes following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:3468–3473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4935-1
Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (2001) The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 83:45–49
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Level of evidence: III
About this article
Cite this article
Kim, M.S., Koh, I.J., Kim, C.K. et al. Comparison of implant position and joint awareness between fixed- and mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a minimum of five year follow-up study. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 2329–2336 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04662-2
- Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
- Joint awareness
- Forgotten joint score