Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

A prospective study was performed to compare the clinical and radiological results of mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty with specific attention to rotational alignment and range of motion. Sixty-one knees were assigned to total knee arthroplasty with either the NexGen LPS Flex fixed-bearing or with the NexGen LPS Flex mobile-bearing prosthesis. Postoperatively, knees were compared with regard to range of motion, clinical score, and radiographic findings. Rotational alignment of the femoral and tibial components was evaluated by computed tomography. The median follow-up period was 5.9 years (range 2.1–8.8 years). Median postoperative Knee Society scores were 99 points (68–100) for the fixed-bearing group and 100 points (66–100) for the mobile-bearing group (n.s.). The median postoperative flexion angles of 120° (90°–150°) for the fixed-bearing group and 125° (90°–145°) for the mobile-bearing group were not significantly different from each other (n.s.). No knee required revision surgery due to wear of polyethylene or loosening of the component in either group. Computed tomography showed that 11 knees had rotational mismatches of more than 10° between the femoral and tibial components, but no significant difference was found in the postoperative extension and flexion angles or in the clinical score between the two treatment groups. Using the identical design for both fixed- and mobile-bearing prostheses, this prospective, randomized study did not show any clinical advantages of the mobile-bearing knee. Analysis of rotational alignment by CT scan did not reveal a particular advantage of the self-aligning mechanism of mobile-bearing implants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, De Luca L (2005) Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 20:145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Mahfouz M, Walker SA, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA (2004) High flexion total knee arthroplasty design replicates healthy knee motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:174–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE (1998) Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 356:144–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhan S, Malhotra R, Kiran EK, Shukla S, Bijjawara M (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 87:2290–2296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bottlang M, Erne OK, Lacatusu E, Sommers MB, Kessler O (2006) A mobile-bearing knee prosthesis can reduce strain at the proximal tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res 447:105–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 105:197–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chiu KY, Ng TP, Tang WM, Lam P (2001) Bilateral total knee arthroplasty: one mobile-bearing and one fixed-bearing. J Orthop Surg 9:45–50

    Google Scholar 

  8. Delport HP, Banks SA, De Schepper J, Bellemans J (2006) A kinematic comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1016–1021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gioe TJ, Glynn J, Sembrano J, Suthers K, Santos ER, Singh J (2009) Mobile and fixed-bearing (all-polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs. A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:2104–2112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ (1978) The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60:358–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Harrington MA, Hopkinson WJ, Hsu P, Manion L (2009) Fixed- vs mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: does it make a difference? A prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24(Suppl):24–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Henricson A, Dalen T, Nilsson KG (2006) Mobile bearings do not improve fixation in cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 448:114–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kanekasu K, Kondo M, Kadoya Y (2005) Axial radiography of the distal femur to assess rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 434:193–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 89:1317–1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz MR, Walker S, Outten J (2004) In vivo polyethylene bearing mobility is maintained in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:207–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matsuda S, White SE, Williams VG 2nd, McCarthy DS, Whiteside LA (1998) Contact stress analysis in meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:699–706

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lädermann A, Lübbeke A, Stern R, Riand N, Fritschy D (2008) Fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised, clinical and radiological study with mid-term results at 7 years. Knee 15:206–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Matsuda S, Whiteside LA, White SE, McCarthy DS (1999) Knee stability in meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14:82–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Minns RJ, Campbell J (1978) The mechanical testing of a sliding meniscus knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 137:268–275

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Most E, Li G, Schule S, Sultan P, Park SE, Zayontz S et al (2003) The kinematics of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:197–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nakayama K, Matsuda S, Miura H, Iwamoto Y, Higaki H, Otsuka K (2005) Contact stress at the post-cam mechanism in posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:483–488

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Stuart MJ, Hanssen AD, Jacofsky DJ (2004) Rotating platform knees did not improve patellar tracking: a prospective, randomized study of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:221–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D, Juszczak E, Carter S, White S 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 85:62–67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shi K, Hayashida K, Umeda N, Yamamoto K, Kawai H (2008) Kinematic comparison between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing inserts in NexGen legacy posterior stabilized flex total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:164–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stukenborg-Colsman C, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Wirth CJ (2002) Tibiofemoral contact stress after total knee arthroplasty: comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing inlay designs. Acta Orthop Scand 73:638–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Watanabe T, Tomita T, Fujii M, Hashimoto J, Sugamoto K, Yoshikawa H (2005) Comparison between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knees in bilateral total knee replacements. Int Orthop 29:179–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Woolson ST, Northrop GD (2004) Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiologic study. J Arthroplasty 19:135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

All of the authors do not have any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence our work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashiku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Shuichi Matsuda, Hideki Mizu-uchi, Shingo Fukagawa, Hiromasa Miura, Ken Okazaki & Yukihide Iwamoto

  2. Matsuda Orthopaedic Clinic, 7-12 Higashimachi, Amakusa, Kumamoto, 863-0033, Japan

    Hideo Matsuda

Authors
  1. Shuichi Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hideki Mizu-uchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shingo Fukagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hiromasa Miura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ken Okazaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hideo Matsuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yukihide Iwamoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shuichi Matsuda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Matsuda, S., Mizu-uchi, H., Fukagawa, S. et al. Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18, 1311–1316 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1143-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1143-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation