Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacement

Michael Tjornild*, Kjeld Søballe, Per Moller Hansen, Carsten Holm, Maiken Stilling

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

34 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and purpose - It is unclear whether mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasties reduce the risk of tibial component loosening compared to fixed-bearing (FB) designs. This randomized study investigated implant migration, periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD), and patient-reported outcomes (Oxford knee score)-all at 2 years-for the P.F.C. Sigma Cruciate Retaining total knee arthroplasty.

Patients and methods - 50 osteoarthritis patients were allocated to either FB or MB tibial articulation.

Resultsand interpretation - At 2 years, the mean total translation (implant migration) was higher for the FB implant (0.30 mm, SD 0.22) than for the MB implant (0.17 mm, SD 0.09) (p = 0.04). BMD decreased between baseline and 1-year follow-up. At 2-year follow-up, BMD was close to the baseline level. The knee scores of both groups improved equally well. The FB tibial implant migrated more than the MB, but this was not clinically significant. The mobile polyethylene presumably partly absorbs the force transmitted to the metal tibial tray, thereby reducing micromotion.

Original languageEnglish
JournalActa Orthopaedica
Volume86
Issue2
Pages (from-to)208-214
Number of pages7
ISSN1745-3674
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2015

Keywords

  • BONE-MINERAL DENSITY
  • ROENTGEN STEREOPHOTOGRAMMETRIC ANALYSIS
  • RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL
  • TIBIAL COMPONENT
  • PROXIMAL TIBIA
  • ARTHROPLASTY
  • MIGRATION
  • FIXATION
  • RSA
  • PROSTHESES

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this