Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty.
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.
Matsuda
Shuichi
S
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashiku, Fukuoka 812-8582, Japan. mazda@ortho.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Mizu-uchi
Hideki
H
Fukagawa
Shingo
S
Miura
Hiromasa
H
Okazaki
Ken
K
Matsuda
Hideo
H
Iwamoto
Yukihide
Y
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000379:methods*; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007720:Knee Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D020370:Osteoarthritis, Knee / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D020127:Recovery of Function; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D013997:Time Factors; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed / Q000379:methods; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D016474:Weight-Bearing
Int Orthop. 2005 Jun;29(3):179-81
15809873
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978 Nov-Dec;(137):268-75
743838
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Jan;85(1):62-7
12585579
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Oct;89(10):1317-23
17957070
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Aug;88(8):1016-21
16877599
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005 Oct;87(10):2290-6
16203896
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998 Nov;(356):144-53
9917679
Knee. 2008 Jun;15(3):206-10
18329883
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 May;(434):193-7
15864052
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jun;447:105-11
16456313
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Jan;14(1):82-90
9926958
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Sep;91(9):2104-12
19723986
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1986;105(4):197-204
3753173
J Arthroplasty. 2005 Feb;20(2):145-53
15902852
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1978 Aug;60-B(3):358-69
581081
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Feb;19(2):135-40
14973854
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Jul;448:114-21
16826105
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):174-9
15534540
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):207-13
15534544
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2001 Jun;9(1):45-50
12468843
J Arthroplasty. 1998 Sep;13(6):699-706
9741449
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Nov;(416):197-207
14646762
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):221-7
15534546
Acta Orthop Scand. 2002 Dec;73(6):638-46
12553510
J Arthroplasty. 2008 Feb;23(2):164-9
18280407
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Sep;24(6 Suppl):24-7
19553072
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Apr;87(4):483-8
15795197