Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 132, Issue 6, pp 875–881 | Cite as

A comparative analysis between fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty (PFC Sigma) and rotating platform total knee arthroplasty (PFC-RP) with minimum 3-year follow-up

  • Akram Jawed
  • Vijay Kumar
  • R. Malhotra
  • C. S. Yadav
  • S. Bhan
Knee Arthroplasty



Since the introduction of mobile bearing total knee designs nearly 30 years back, many studies have been done to evaluate its long-term result. Comparison with fixed bearing designs has been done in the past, but the studies were confounded by variables such as disease, surgeon, bone quality, pain tolerance, etc. We attempt to eliminate these variables in this study.


A total of 50 patients who had bilateral arthritis of the knee with similar deformity and pre-operative range of motion on both sides agreed to have one knee replaced with mobile bearing total knee design (PFC-RP) and the other with a fixed bearing design (PFC Sigma) were prospectively evaluated. Comparative analysis of both the designs was done at a mean follow-up of 40 months, minimizing patient, surgeon and observer related bias. Clinical and radiographic outcome, survival and complication rates were compared.


At a mean follow-up of 40 months (range 36–47 months), no benefit of mobile bearing (PFC-RP) over fixed bearing design (PFC Sigma) could be demonstrated with respect to Knee Society scores, pain scores, range of flexion, subject preference or patello-femoral complication rates. Radiographs showed no difference in prosthetic alignment. No patient required a revision surgery till last follow-up.


Our study demonstrated no advantage of the mobile-bearing arthroplasty over fixed bearing arthroplasty with regard to clinical results at short-term follow-up. However, longer follow-up is necessary to confirm whether these results are sustained.


Mobile bearing Fixed bearing Rotating platform Knee score 


  1. 1.
    Callaghan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS (1994) Patient outcomes following tricompartmental knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA 271(17):1349–1357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, Scuderi GR, Font-Rodriguez D (1997) Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79-A:575–582Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Insall JN, Hood RW, Flawn LB, Sullivan DJ (1983) The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis: a five to nine-year follow-up of the first one hundred consecutive replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65-A:619–628Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ritter M (1998) 15 year results with the AGC knee. Read at the Annual Meeting on Current Concepts in Joint Replacement, Orlando, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stern SH, Insall JN (1992) Posterior stabilized prosthesis. Results after follow-up of nine to twelve years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74-A:980–986Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 70:1093–1096PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bryan RS, Rand JA (1982) Revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:116–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Werner F, Foster D, Murray DG (1978) The influence of design on transmission of torque across knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60A:342–348Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim YH, Koo HK, Kim JS (2001) Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:101–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1986) The New Jersey Low-Contact Stress knee replacement system: biomechanical rationale and review of the first 123 cemented cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 105:197–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ranawat CS, Insall J, Shine J (1976) Duo-condylar knee arthroplasty: hospital for special surgery design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 120:76–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stern SH, Insall JN (1990) Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:1400–1404PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Insall JN, Salvati E (1971) Patella position in normal knee joint. Radiology 101:101–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blackburne JS, Peel TE (1977) A new method of measuring patellar height. J Bone Joint Surg Br 59(2):241–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 Arthroplasty 26(8):1205–1213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelly NH, Fu RH, Wright TM, Padgett DE (2011) Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):123–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Geiger F, Mau H, Krüger M, Thomsen M (2008) Comparison of a new mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis with a fixed-bearing prosthesis: a matched pair analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128(3):285–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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):1311–1316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim YH, Choi Y, Kim JS (2010) Osteolysis in well-functioning fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(11):3084–3093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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):CD003130Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS (2007) The long-term results of simultaneous fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements performed in the same patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(10):1317–1323PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luring C, Bathis H, Oczipka F, Trepte C, Lufen H, Perlick L, Grifka J (2006) Two-year follow-up on joint stability and muscular function comparing rotating versus fixed bearing TKR. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(7):605–611PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Post ZD, Matar WY, van de Leur T, Grossman EL, Austin MS (2010) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: better than a fixed-bearing? J Arthroplasty 25(6):998–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vasdev A, Kumar S, Chadha G, Mandal SP (2009) Fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in Indian patients. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 17(2):179–182Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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):1172–1179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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):904–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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):62–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ranawat AS, Rossi R, Loreti I, Rasquina VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS (2004) Comparison of short-tern results of PFC Sigma fixed bearing and rotating platform total knee arthroplasty in same patient. J Arthroplasty 19(1):35–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wohlrab D, Ditl J, Herrschelmann R, Schietsch U, Hein W, Hube R (2005) Does the NexGen LPS flex mobile knee prosthesis offer advantages compared to the NexGen LPS?—a comparison of clinical and radiological results. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 143(5):567–572 (article in German)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    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(8):1959–1965PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bhan S, Malhotra R (2003) Results of rotating platform, LCS knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 18(8):1016–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bhan S, Malhotra R, Krishna Kiran E, Shukla Sourav, Bijjawara Mahesh (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-A:2290–2296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2000) Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. A nine to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 82A:705–711Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    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):2224–2229PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akram Jawed
    • 1
  • Vijay Kumar
    • 1
  • R. Malhotra
    • 1
  • C. S. Yadav
    • 1
  • S. Bhan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsAll India Institute of Medical SciencesNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations