Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In vivo kinematics comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty during deep knee bending motion

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

Abstract

Purpose

The in vivo kinematics of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee prostheses remains unclear, particularly for knee flexion over 120°. The purpose of this study was to compare the in vivo kinematics of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized prosthesis during deep knee bending with knee flexion exceeding 120° under weight-bearing conditions.

Methods

In vivo kinematics was analysed for 20 patients implanted with either a fixed-bearing posterior-stabilized or mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized prosthesis. Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient performed weight-bearing deep knee bending. Motion between each component was analysed using a two- to three-dimensional registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design models to reproduce the spatial positions of the femoral and tibial components from single-view fluoroscopic images.

Results

Patients who had fixed-bearing prostheses experienced posterior femoral rollback at a mean of 1.4 mm (SD 1.6) of the medial condyle, whereas patients who had mobile-bearing prostheses experienced 0.8 mm (SD 1.2). The posterior femoral rollback of the femoral lateral condyle in patients with a fixed-bearing prosthesis was a mean of 6.4 mm (SD 1.7) motion in the posterior direction, whereas patients who had a mobile-bearing prosthesis had 6.5 mm (SD 2.4) motion. The mean tibial internal rotation was 7.5° (SD 2.1) for fixed-bearing prosthesis and 9.2° (SD 3.2) for mobile-bearing prosthesis.

Conclusions

The present results demonstrated that the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized designs had similar posterior condylar translation and tibial axial rotation during weight-bearing deep knee flexion exceeding 120°.

Level of evidence

Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Asano T, Akagi M, Tanaka K, Tamura J, Nakamura T (2001) In vivo three dimensional knee kinematics using a biplanar image-matching techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 338:157–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banks S, Bellemans J, Nozaki H, Whiteside LA, Harman M, Hodge WA (2003) Knee motions during maximum flexion in fixed and mobile-bearing arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:131–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Banks SA, Harman MK, Bellemans J, Hodge WA (2003) Making sense of knee arthroplasty kinematics: news you can use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:64–72

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Banks SA, Hodge WA (2004) 2003 Hap Paul Award Paper of the international Society for Technology in Arthroplasty. Design and activity dependence of kinematics in fixed and mobile-bearing knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 19:809–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Banks SA, Hodge WA (2004) Implant design affects knee arthroplasty kinematics during stair-stepping. Clin Orthop Relat Res 426:187–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartel DL, Rawlinson JJ, Burstein AH, Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr (1995) Stresses in polyethylene components of contemporary total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 317:76–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1989) New Jersey low contact stress knee replacement system. Ten-year evaluation of meniscal bearings. Orthop Clin North Am 20:147–177

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 105:197–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Catani F, Fantozzi S, Ensini A, Leardini A, Moschella D, Giannini S (2006) Influence of tibial component posterior slope on in vivo knee kinematics in fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 24:581–587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR (2003) In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of fixed- bearing total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:114–130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Outten JT, Sharma A (2005) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Do the polyethylene bearings rotate? Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:88–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB (2003) Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:37–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Engh GA, Zimmerman RL, Parks NL, Engh CA (2009) Analysis of wear in retrieved mobile and fixed bearing knee inserts. J Arthroplasty 24:28–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Futai K, Tomita T, Yamazaki T, Tamaki M, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2011) In vivo kinematics of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty during deep knee bending under weight-bearing conditions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:914–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Haas BD, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Aderon DT, Northcut EJ (2002) Kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate sacrifice versus substitution in a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:685–692

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hasegawa M, Sudo A, Uchida A (2009) Staged bilateral mobile-bearing and fixed- bearing total knee arthroplasty in the same patients: a prospective comparison of a posterior-stabilized prosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Atrhrosc 17:237–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heinert G, Kendoff D, Preiss S, Gehrke T, Sussmann P (2011) Patellofemoral kinematics in mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing posterior stabilised total knee replacements: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:967–972

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 82:1189–1195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly NH, Fu RH, Wright TM, Padget DE (2011) Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:123–130

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M (2003) In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of the normal human knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:69–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu F, Ohdera T, Miyamoto H, Wasielewski RC, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR (2009) In vivo kinematic determination of total knee arthroplasty from squatting to standing. Knee 16:116–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahfouz MR, Hoff WA, Komistek RD, Dennis DA (2003) A robust method for registration of three-dimensional knee implant models to two-dimensional fluoroscopy images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 22:1561–1574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahoney OM, Kinsey TL, Banks AZ, Banks SA (2009) Rotational kinematics of a modern fixed-bearing posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:641–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Malviya A, Lingard EA, Weir DJ, Deehan DJ (2009) Predicting range of movement after knee replacement: the importance of posterior condylar offset and tibial slope. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:491–498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Massin P, Gournay A (2006) Optimization of the posterior condylar offset, tibial slope, and condylar roll-back in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:889–896

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. McEwen HMC, Barnett PI, Bell CJ, Farrar R, Auger DD, Stone MH, Fisher J (2005) The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech 38:357–365

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mizu-uchi H, Colwell CW, Matsuda S, Flores-Hernandez C, Iwamoto Y (2011) Effect of total knee arthroplasty implant position on flexion angle before implant-bone impingement. J Arthroplasty 26:721–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Oh KJ, Paudher DS, Lee SH, Sung Joon SD Jr, Lee ST (2009) Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:873–884

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Ranawat CS, Komistek RD, Rodriguez JA, Dennis DA, Anderle M (2004) In vivo kinematics for fixed and mobile- bearing posterior stabilized knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. Stiehl JB, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Keblish PA (1997) In vivo kinematic analysis of a mobile bearing total knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 345:60–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tamaki M, Tomita T, Watanabe T, Yamazaki T, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2009) In vivo kinematic analysis of a high-flexion, posterior-stabilized, mobile-bearing knee prosthesis in deep knee bending motion. J Arthroplasty 24:972–978

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Victor J, Mueller JK, Komistek RD, Sharma A, Nadaud MC, Bellemans J (2010) In vivo kinematics after cruciate-substituting TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:807–814

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wolterbeek N, Nelissen R, Valstar E (2012) No differences in in vivo kinematics between six different types of knee prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:559–564

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Yoshiya S, Matsui N, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M, Kurosaka M (2005) In vivo kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasties under passive and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty 20:777–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g. consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Orthopedic Department, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

    Xiaojun Shi, Bin Shen, Jing Yang, Pengde Kang, Zongke Zhou & Fuxing Pei

Authors
  1. Xiaojun Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bin Shen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jing Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pengde Kang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zongke Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fuxing Pei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fuxing Pei.

Additional information

Ethical statement:

Institutional Review Board of West China Hospital of Sichuan University has approved this experiment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shi, X., Shen, B., Yang, J. et al. In vivo kinematics comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty during deep knee bending motion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22, 1612–1618 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2333-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2333-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation