Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 May 16;94(10):866-73. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00884.

Long-term comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements in patients younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis.

Author information

1
The Joint Replacement Center of Korea at Ewha Womans University MokDong Hospital, 911-1, MokDong, YangChun-Ku, Seoul, Republic of Korea. younghookim@ewha.ac.kr

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is limited information comparing the results of fixed-bearing total knee replacement and mobile-bearing total knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis who are younger than fifty-one years and who have a fixed-bearing implant in one knee and a mobile-bearing implant in the other. The purpose of this study was to compare our long-term clinical and radiographic results of fixed-bearing total knee replacement and mobile-bearing total knee replacement in a group of patients from this population.

METHODS:

We prospectively compared the results of 108 patients with osteoarthritis who were younger than fifty-one years (mean age, forty-five years) who had received a fixed-bearing prosthesis in one knee and a rotating platform mobile-bearing prosthesis in the other. The mean follow-up was 16.8 years (range, fifteen to eighteen years). The patients were assessed clinically and radiographically. Knee motion and function were assessed as a primary outcome. Patients were assessed with questionnaires, and each knee was assessed separately.

RESULTS:

Although there was significant improvement in both groups of knees, there was no significant difference between the groups (i.e., fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing knees) with regard to the mean postoperative knee motion (126° and 128°, respectively; p = 0.79), the mean Knee Society knee clinical score (95 and 94 points, respectively; p = 0.79), or the Knee Society knee functional score (84 and 85 points, respectively; p = 0.19) at the latest follow-up. In the fixed-bearing group, one knee was revised because of infection, two for aseptic loosening of the tibial component, and two because of wear of the tibial polyethylene insert. In the rotating platform mobile-bearing group, two knees were revised because of instability and one because of infection. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for revision at 16.8 years of follow-up was 95% (95% confidence interval, 91 to 100) for the fixed-bearing prosthesis and 97% (95% confidence interval, 93 to 100) for the rotating platform mobile-bearing prosthesis.

CONCLUSIONS:

Long-term results of both fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties were encouraging in patients who were younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis. However, we found no superiority of the mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis over the fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis.

PMID:
22617913
DOI:
10.2106/JBJS.K.00884
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
    Loading ...
    Support Center