A COMPARISON OF FIXED-BEARING AND MOBILE-BEARING TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY AT A MINIMUM FOLLOW-UP OF 4.5 YEARS

Abstract

Background: Durable long-term independent results with the Low Contact Stress rotating-platform (mobile-bearing) and the Insall Burstein-II (fixed-bearing) total knee prostheses have been reported, but no studies describing either the mid-term or long-term results and comparing the two prostheses are available, to our knowledge. Methods: Thirty-two patients who had bilateral arthritis of the knee with similar deformity and preoperative range of motion on both sides and who agreed to have one knee replaced with a mobile-bearing total knee design and the other with a fixed-bearing design were prospectively evaluated. Comparative analysis of both designs was done at a mean follow-up period of six years, minimizing patient, surgeon, and observer-related bias. Clinical and radiographic outcome, survival, and complication rates were compared. Results: Patients with osteoarthritis had better function scores and range of motion compared with patients with rheumatoid arthritis. However, with the numbers available, no benefit of mobile-bearing over fixed-bearing designs could be demonstrated with respect to Knee Society scores, range of flexion, subject preference, or patellofemoral complication rates. Radiographs showed no difference in prosthetic alignment. Two knees with a mobile-bearing prosthesis required a reoperation: one had an early revision because of bearing dislocation and another required conversion to an arthrodesis to treat a deep infection. Conclusions: We found no advantage of the mobile-bearing arthroplasty over the fixed-bearing arthroplasty with regard to the clinical results at mid-term follow-up. The risk of bearing subluxation and dislocation in knees with the mobile-bearing prosthesis is a cause for concern and may necessitate early revision. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.