Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is there any superiority in the clinical outcome of mobile-bearing knee prosthesis designs compared to fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis designs in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint?

A review of the literature

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

Abstract

To substantiate the validity and relevance of the mobile-bearing knee prosthesis design compared to the fixed-bearing design, concerning the clinical outcome, this review was conducted. Articles published in 6 major orthopaedic journals were screened. Only randomized controlled trials, which investigate the clinical outcome, were included. The clinical outcome parameters of each study were analysed. Despite the numerous quantities of publications in orthopaedic literature, we could conclude, that only a few of them are randomized controlled trials. Although better kinematics of mobile-bearing knee prosthesis designs compared to fixed-bearing knee prosthesis designs are reported, no superiority of one of the bearing designs concerning clinical outcome could be revealed. Because no superiority of one of the designs concerning revision rate, survival and outcome can be found, the cheaper one should be the one to be recommended. For this reason, we advise that further research, comparing the costs and cost-benefit of mobile-bearing compared to fixed-bearing knee prosthesis designs, should be performed.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R et al (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. Bhan S, Malhotra R, Kiran EK et al (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 87-A:2290–2296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV et al (2001) Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg 83:1433–1435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Böhm P, Holy T, Pietsch-Breitfeld B et al (2000) Mortality after total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthrosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120:75–78

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ et al (2002) Twenty-year evaluation of the New Jersey LCS rotating platform knee replacement. J Knee Surg 15:84–89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Callaghan JJ (2001) Mobile-bearing knee replacement: clinical results: a review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:221–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA et al (1994) Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA 271:1349–1357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. DeFrances CJ, Hall MJ (2002) National hospital discharge survey: advance data from vital and health statistics, 2004. Report no. 342

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR et al (2005) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: do the polyethylene bearings rotate? Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:88–95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dieppe P, Basler HD, Chard J et al (1999) Knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis: effectiveness, practice variations, indications and possible determinants of utilization. Rheumatology 38:73–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Duffy GP, Trousdale RT, Stuart MJ (1998) Total knee arthroplasty in patients 55 years old or younger. 10- to 17-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 356:22–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ellis J, Mulligan I, Rowe J et al (1995) Inpatient general medicine is evidence based. Lancet 364:407–410

    Google Scholar 

  14. Emerson RH, Higgins LL, Head WC (2000) The AGC total knee prosthesis at average 11 years. J Arthroplasty 15:418–423

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN (1997) Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 345:79–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Freedman KB, Back S, Bernstein J (2001) Sample size and statistical power of randomised, controlled trials in orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg 83-B:397–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Garling EH, Valstar ER, Nelissen RG (2005) Comparison of micromotion in mobile bearing and posterior stabilized total knee prostheses: a randomized RSA study of 40 knees followed for 2 years. Acta Orthop 76:353–361

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hall JC, Hall JL (2002) Randomization in surgical trials. Surgery 132:513–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansson U, Toksvig-Larsen S, Jorn LP et al (2005) Mobile vs. fixed meniscal bearing in total knee replacement: a randomised radiostereometric study. Knee 12:414–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ho FY, Ma HM, Liau JJ et al (2007) Mobile-bearing knees reduce rotational asymmetric wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:143–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Howes N, Chagla L, Thorpe M et al (1997) Surgical practice is evidence-based. Br J Surg 84:1220–1223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang CH, Liau JJ, Cheng CK (2007) Fixed or mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2:1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jacobs WCH, Anderson PG, Limbeek J, Wymenga AB (2001) Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for total knee arthroplasty for post-operative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cohrane database of systematic reviews issue 2. Art. No.: CD003130. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003130.pub2

  24. Kim BS, Reitman RD, Schai PA et al (1999) Selective patellar nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. 10 year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim YH, Kim JS (2004) Comparison of anterior-posterior-glide and rotating-platform low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg 86-A:1239–1247

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kim YH, Kook HK, Kim JS (2001) Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:101–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kiter E, Karatosun V, Günal I (2003) Do orthopaedic journals provide high-quality evidence for clinical practice? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123:82–85

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kop AM, Swarts E (2007) Quantification of polyethylene degradation in mobile bearing knees: a retrieval analysis of the anterior-posterior-glide (APG) and rotating platform (RP) low contact stress (LCS) knee. Acta Orthop 78:364–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Manusco CA, Ranawat CS, Esdaile JM, et al. (1996) Indications for total hip and total knee arthroplasties: results of orthopaedic surveys. J Arthroplasty 11:1134–1146

    Google Scholar 

  30. McCulloch P, Taylor I, Sasako M et al (2002) Randomized trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ 324:1448–1451

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Murray DW, Frost SJD (1998) Pain in the assessment of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 80-B:426–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D 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 85-B:62–67

    Google Scholar 

  33. R Development Core Team (2007) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org

  34. Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Deshmukh RG (1994) Impact of modern technique on long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 309:131–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rees JL, Beard DJ, Price AJ et al (2005) Real in vivo kinematic differences between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 432:204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Rehart S, Schwinnen I, Rittmeister M, et al. (2002) A comparison of total knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with degenerative arthritis. Orthopade 31:1179–1186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Robertsson O, Scott G, Freeman MA (2000) Ten-year survival of the cemented Freeman-Samuelson primary knee arthroplasty. Data from the Swedish knee arthroplasty register and the Royal London hospital. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 82:506–507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sharma A, Komistek RD, Ranawat CS et al (2007) In vivo contact pressures in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:404–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stern SH, Insall JN (1990) Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg 72-A:1400–1404

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sun Y, Stürmer T, Günther KP, Brenner H (1997) Incidence and prevalence of cox- and gonarthrosis in the general population. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135:184–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Vessely MB, Whaley AL, Harmsen WS et al (2006) The Chitranjan Ranawat award: long-term survivorship and failure modes of 1000 cemented condylar total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:28–34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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

Acknowledgments

I want to acknowledge Iris Wojtowicz for her assistance in searching the literature and Veronique Bruynseels for her assistance in correcting the grammar and orthography.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, University Hospital Ghent, 2P5, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    H. Van der Bracht, P. Verdonk, K. F. Almqvist & R. Verdonk

  2. Department of Medical Informatics and Statistics, University Hospital Ghent, De Pintelaan 185, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    G. Van Maele

  3. The Royal London Hospital, Whitechapel Road, London, E1 1BB, UK

    M. Freeman

Authors
  1. H. Van der Bracht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Van Maele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Verdonk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. F. Almqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Verdonk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Van der Bracht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van der Bracht, H., Van Maele, G., Verdonk, P. et al. Is there any superiority in the clinical outcome of mobile-bearing knee prosthesis designs compared to fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis designs in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18, 367–374 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0973-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0973-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation