Journal List > J Korean Orthop Assoc > v.43(2) > 1012766

Sohn, Lee, and Cho: Comparision between Mobile Bearing and Fixed Bearing T.K.A. in the Same Patient

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the radiological and clinical results including the patient's satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using two differently designed system for both knees in the same patient.

Materials and Methods

From January 2002 to January 2003, thirty-two bilateral TKAs were prospectively performed using two differently designed systems. One side TKA was performed using a mobile bearing (PFC RP, Dupey) system, and the other side was performed using a fixed bearing system (PFC, Dupey). All 32 patients were followed up for an average of 51.4 months. The mean age of the study group was 67 years (range 54-75). The clinical results were evaluated from the Knee Score, WOMAC score for the patient's satisfaction and range of motion. Radiological analysis including the tibiofemoral angle was also carried out. An independent T-test was used for statistical analysis.

Results

The preoperative average knee score improved to 87.3 from 42.5 in the mobile bearing group and to 86 from 39 in the fixed bearing group respectively. The preoperative average WOMAC score decreased to 11.2 from 84.9 in the mobile bearing group and to 16 from 85.5 in the fixed bearing group. The average preoperative range of knee motion improved to 114.5° from 104.5° in the mobile bearing group and to 113.8° from 104.7° in the fixed bearing group. The average preoperative tibiofemoral angle improved to 5.3° valgus form 4.5° varus in the mobile bearing group and to 6° valgus from 3.8° varus in the fixed bearing group. The only result statistically significant was the WOMAC score (p<0.05).

Conclusion

The two differently designed TKA system produce similar outcomes except for the subjective satisfaction in the mid-term clinical and radiological evaluation.

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1
Evaluation of the postoperative knee score.
jkoa-43-200-g001
Fig. 2
Evaluation of the postoperative WOMAC score.
jkoa-43-200-g002
Table 1
The knee Society Score according to the Clinical Rating System
jkoa-43-200-i001

K.S., Knee score. *( )=%.

Table 2
The Functional Score according to the Clinical Rating System
jkoa-43-200-i002

F.S., Functional score. *( )=%.

Table 3
The WOMAC Score according to the the Clinical Rating System
jkoa-43-200-i003

W.S., WOMAC score. *( )=%.

Table 4
The Mediolateral Stability according to the Roentgenographic Evaluation
jkoa-43-200-i004

ML, mediolateral. *( )=%.

References

1. Bartel DL, Burstein AH, Toda MD, Edwards DL. The effect of conformity and plastic thickness on contact stresses in metal-backed plastic implants. J Biomech Eng. 1985. 107:193–199.
crossref
2. Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Reum. 1989. 18:4 Suppl 2. 14–17.
crossref
3. Buechel FF. New Jersey low-contact-stress (LCS) knee replacement system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991. 264:309–311.
4. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ. Long-term survivorship analysis of cruciate-sparing versus cruciate-sacrificing knee prostheses using meniscal bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990. 260:162–169.
crossref
5. Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. A nine to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000. 82:705–711.
6. Chiu KY, Ng TP, Tang WM, Lam P. Bilateral total knee arthroplasty: one mobile-bearing and one fixed-bearing. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2001. 9:45–50.
crossref
7. Christopher JV, Mark EE, Scott WN, Insall JN. Mobile bearing in primary knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001. 9:355–364.
8. Darryl DD, Micheal T, Andrew GU, Clifford WC. Comparison between the kinematics of fixed and rotating bearing knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000. 380:151–157.
9. Ewald FC. The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989. 248:9–12.
crossref
10. Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997. 345:79–86.
crossref
11. Gill GS, Chan KC, Mills DM. 5- to 18-year follow-up study of cemented total knee arthroplasty for patients 55 years old or younger. J Arthroplasty. 1997. 121:49–54.
crossref
12. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989. 248:13–14.
crossref
13. Lee DC, Kim DH, Scott RD, Suthers K. Intraoperative flexion against gravity as indication of ultimate range of motion individual cases after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998. 5:500–503.
14. Matsuda S, Whiteside LA, White SE, McCarthy DS. Knee stability in meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1999. 14:82–90.
crossref
15. Sorrells RB. The rotating platform mobile bearing TKA. Orthopaedics. 1996. 19:793–796.
crossref
16. O'Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW. Theory and practice of meniscal knee replacement: designing against wear. Proc Inst Mech Eng. 1996. 210:217–222.
17. Walker PS, Sathasivam S. Controlling the motion of total knee replacements using intercondylar guide surfaces. J Orthop Res. 2000. 18:48–55.
crossref
18. Weaver JK, Derkash RS, Greenwald AS. Difficulties with bearing dislocation and breakage using a movable bearing total knee replacement system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993. 290:244–252.
crossref
19. Werner F, Foster D, Murray DG. The influence of design on the transmission of torque across knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978. 60:342–348.
crossref
20. Woolson ST, Northrop GD. Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiologic study. J Arthroplasy. 2004. 19:135–140.
TOOLS
Similar articles