Advertisement

The Historical Perspective of Mobile-Bearing Knee Implants

  • R. D. Jones

Abstract

Conventional fixed-bearing total knees have mid to long- term follow-ups of 10–15 years demonstrating good results [6, 12, 13]. The patients in most studies of fixed- bearing implants have been older patients with low activity levels, and subsequently low demands on the implant [4].Twenty to twenty-five year results with fixed- bearing designs are unknown at this time.

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Polyethylene Wear Tibial Insert Total Knee Arthroplasty Design Tibial Baseplate 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartel DL, Bicknell VL, Wright TM (1986) The effect of conformity, thickness, and material on stresses in ultra-high molecular weight components for total joint replacement. I Bone Joint Surg 68 A: 1041–1051Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blunn GW, Walker PS, Joshi A, Hardinge K (1991) The dominance of cyclic sliding in producing wear in total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 273: 253–260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Callaghan JJ (2000) Reduction of polyethylene wear in mo-bile-bearing knees. Orthopaedics Today, Thorofare, NJGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callaghan JJ, Insall JN, Greenwald AS, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Murray DW, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Dorr LD (2000) Mobile-bearing knee replacement: concepts and results. J Bone joint Surg 82 A: 1020–1037Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan FM, Johnston RC (2000) Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement: a nine to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 82 A: 705–711Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colliza 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 77 A: 1713–1720Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J J (1992) The anterior cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty: a risk factor in unconstrained meniscal prostheses. Clin Orthop 276: 245–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    James P (2000) Making the transition from a fixed-bearing to a mobile-bearing design. Orthopedics Today, Thorofare, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones VC, Barton DC, Fitzpatrick DP, Auger DD, Stone MH, Fisher J (1999) An experimental model of tibial counter- face polyethylene wear in mobile bearing knees: the influence of design and kinematics. Biomed Mater Eng 9: 189–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parks NL, Engh GA, Topoleski LDT, Emperado J (1998) Modular tibial insert micromotion: a concern with con-temporary knee implants. Clin Orthop 356: 10–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peters PC, Engh GA, Dwyer KA, Vinh TN (1992) Osteolysis after total knee arthroplasty without cement. J Bone Joint Surg 74 A: 864–876Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ranawat CS, Flynn Jr WF, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ (1993) Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty: a 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop 286: 94–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schai PA, Thornhill TS, Scott RD (1998) Total knee arthroplasty with the PFC system: results at a minimum of ten years and survivorship analysis. J Bone Joint Surg SOB: 850–858Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sorrells RB (1996) Primary knee arthroplasty: long-term outcomes, the rotating platform mobile bearing TKA. Orthopedics 19: 793–796PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trent PS, Walker PS (1976) Ligament length patterns, strength, and rotational axes of the knee joint. Clin Orthop 117: 263–270PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wasielewski RC, Parks N, Williams I, Surprenant H, Collier JP, Engh G (1997) Tibial insert undersurface as a contributing source of polyethylene wear debris. Clin Orthop 345: 53–59PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. D. Jones

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations