Comparison of implant position and joint awareness between fixed- and mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a minimum of five year follow-up study



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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3


  1. 1.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH (2007) The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee 14:154–157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    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

  7. 7.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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

  12. 12.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Goodfellow JW, Tibrewal SB, Sherman KP, O'Connor JJ (1987) Unicompartmental Oxford Meniscal knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 2:1–9

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong In.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Level of evidence: III

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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).

Download citation


  • Fixed-bearing
  • Mobile-bearing
  • Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
  • Joint awareness
  • Forgotten joint score