Lessons Learned from Mobile-Bearing Knees

  • J. V. Baré
  • R. B. Bourne


With the issues over the surgical treatment of the young osteoarthritic knee far from being resolved, the intellectual concepts associated with a mobile-bearing prosthesis are indeed attractive. The current challenges in knee prosthetic design are centered around attempting to produce normal kinematics, reducing wear and hence achieving greater longevity. Initially, it was hoped that mobile-bearing designs might go a long way toward achieving these aims. These hopes have yet to be borne out in practice.


Total Knee Arthroplasty Polyethylene Wear Volumetric Wear Mobile Bearing Normal Knee Kinematic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Buechel FF Sr (2002) Long-term follow-up after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 404:40–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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 50:431–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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 [Am] 82:705–711PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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] 77:1713–1720PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill GS, Joshi AB, Mills DM (1999) Total condylar knee arthroplasty: 16-to 21-year results. Clin Orthop 367:210–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop 205:21–42PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hill PF, Vedi V, Williams A, Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MA (2000) Tibiofemoral movement 2: the loaded and unloaded living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 82:1196–1198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huang CH, Ho FY, Ma HM, Yang CT, Liau JJ, Kao HC, Young TH, Cheng CK (2002) Particle size and morphology of UHMWPE wear debris in failed total knee arthroplasties — a comparison between mobile bearing and fixed bearing knees. J Orthop Res 20:1038–1041CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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] 8412:2224–2229Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MA (2000) Tibiofemoral movement. 1: the shapes and relative movements of the femur and tibia in the unloaded cadaver knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 82:1189–1195CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones VC, Barton DC, Fitzpatrick DP, Auger DD, Stone MH, Fisher J (1999) An experimental model of tibial counterface polyethylene wear in mobile bearing knees: the influence of design and kinematics. Biomed Mater Eng 9:189–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jordan LR, Olivo JL, Voorhorst PE (1997) Survivorship analysis of cementless meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 338:119–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murray DW, Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1998) The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 80:983–989CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakagawa S, Kadoya Y, Todo S, Kobayashi A, Sakamoto H, Freeman MA, Yamano Y (2000) Tibiofemoral movement. 3: full flexion in the living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 82:1199–1200CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Price AJ et al (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] 85:62–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rostoker W, Galante JO (1979) Contact pressure dependence of wear rates of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res 13:957–964CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sathasivam S, Walker PS, Campbell PA, Rayner K (2001) The effect of contact area on wear in relation to fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee replacements. J Biomed Mater Res 58:282–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vertullo CJ, Easley ME, Scott WN, Insall JN (2001) Mobile bearings in primary knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 9:355–364PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walker PS, Sathasivam S (2000) Design forms of total knee replacement. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 214:101–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. V. Baré
  • R. B. Bourne

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations