Skip to main content
International Orthopaedics logoLink to International Orthopaedics
. 2005 Apr 5;29(3):179–181. doi: 10.1007/s00264-005-0646-6

Comparison between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knees in bilateral total knee replacements

T Watanabe 1, T Tomita 1,, M Fujii 2, J Hashimoto 1, K Sugamoto 1, H Yoshikawa 1
PMCID: PMC3456881  PMID: 15809873

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare mid-term results of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing in bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Twenty-two patients underwent bilateral TKA with a mobile-bearing prosthesis (Rotaglide, Corin, UK) on one side and a fixed-bearing prosthesis (NexGen-CR, Zimmer, USA) on the other. There were 21 female patients, and in 18 patients, the diagnosis was rheumatoid arthritis. The average age was 59.6 (35–78) years. In all procedures, the posterior cruciate ligament was retained and patella re-surfaced. The average follow-up in the mobile-bearing group was 98 (79–107) months and 96 (79–107) months in the fixed-bearing group. At the final follow-up, the knee score was 91.8 points and 91.1 points, respectively, and the function score 65.5 points. The range of motion was similar in the two groups (1.1–106.9°; 0.4–106.9°). Five patients favoured the fixed-bearing prosthesis, but 16 found no difference. In patients with bilateral TKA, there was no difference in the short-term result between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing prostheses.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (80.5 KB).

References

  • 1.Chiu TP, Tang WM, Lam P. Bilateral total knee arthroplasty: one mobile-bearing and one fixed-bearing. J Orthop Surg. 2001;9:45–50. doi: 10.1177/230949900100900109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop. 1989;248:9–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Figgie HE, III, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller HS, III, Gordon NH. The influence of tibial–patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1035–1040. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop. 1989;248:13–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kim YH, Kook HK, Kin JS. Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop. 2001;392:101–115. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200111000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D, Juszczak E, Carter S, White S, Steiger R, Dodd CAF, Gibbons M, McLardy-Smith P, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW. A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single-blind randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:62–67. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.85b1.13233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ranawat AS, Rossi R, Loreti I, Rasquinha VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS. Comparison of the PFC Sigma fixed-bearing and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. Short-term results. J Arthroplast. 2004;14:35–39. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2003.08.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Orthopaedics are provided here courtesy of Springer-Verlag

RESOURCES