Fixed Versus Rotating Platform Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blind Study

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 26, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 531-536

  Ball, Scott T ^a   Sanchez, Hugo B ^a   Mahoney, Ormonde M ^b   Schmalzried, Thomas P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Athens Orthopaedic Clinic   (United States)

^c ST VINCENT MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

High flexion; Mobile bearing; Rotating platform; Stair climbing; Total knee arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLIMBING; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SCORING SYSTEM; SINGLE BLIND PROCEDURE; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT;

AGED; ARTHRALGIA; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; KNEE JOINT; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79955966370     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: 15328406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Font-Rodriguez D.E., Scuderi G.R., Insall J.N. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1997, 345:79.
2. Callaghan J.J., Insall J.N., Greenwald A.S., et al. Mobile-bearing knee replacement: concepts and results. Instr Course Lect 2001, 50:431.
3. Malkani A.L., Rand J.A., Bryan R.S., et al. Total knee arthroplasty with the kinematic condylar prosthesis. A ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995, 77:423.
4. Pradhan N.R., Gambhir A., Porter M.L. Survivorship analysis of 3234 primary knee arthroplasties implanted over a 26-year period: a study of eight different implant designs. Knee 2006, 13:7.
5. Ranawat C.S., Flynn W.F., Saddler S., et al. Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993, 286:94.
6. Ritter M.A., Berend M.E., Meding J.B., et al. Long-term follow-up of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001, 388:51.
7. Robinson E.J., Mulliken B.D., Bourne R.B., et al. Catastrophic osteolysis in total knee replacement: a report of 17 cases. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995, 321:98.
8. Sharkey P.F., Hozack W.J., Rothman R.H., et al. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?. Clin Orthop 2002, 404:7.
9. Morra E.A., Postak P.D., Plaxton N.A., et al. The effects of external torque on polyethylene tibial insert damage patterns. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003, 410:90.
10. Werner F., Foster D., Murray D.G. The influence of design on the transmission of torque across knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978, 60:342.
11. Mikulak S.A., Mahoney O.M., dela Rosa M.A., et al. Loosening and osteolysis with the press-fit condylar posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001, 83A:398.
12. Collier J.P., Sperling D.K., Currier J.H., et al. Impact of gamma sterilization on clinical performance of polyethylene in the knee. J Arthroplasty 1996, 11:377.
13. Collier M.B., Engh C.A., McAuley J.P., et al. Osteolysis after total knee arthroplasty: influence of tibial baseplate surface finish and sterilization of polyethylene insert. Findings at five to ten years postoperatively. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:2702.
14. Collier M.B., Engh C.A., McAuley J.P., et al. Factors associated with the loss of thickness of polyethylene tibial bearings after knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89:1306.
15. Kuster M.S., Horz S., Spalinger E., et al. The effects of conformity and load in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 2000, 375:302.
16. Bohl J.R., Bohl W.R., Postak P.D., et al. The Coventry Award: the effects of shelf life on clinical outcome for gamma sterilized polyethylene tibial components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999, 367:28.
17. Buechel F.F. Long-term follow-up after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 2002, 404:40.
18. Price A.J., Rees J.L., Beard D., et al. mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003, 85:62.
19. Gioe T.J., Glynn J., Sembrano J., et al. Mobile and fixed-bearing (all-polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91A:2104.
20. Aglietti P., Baldini A., Buzzi R., et al. Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2005, 20:145.
21. Pagnano M.W., Trousdale R.T., Stuart M.J., et al. Rotating platform knees did not improve patellar tracking: a prospective, randomized study of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 2004, 428:221.
22. Kim Y.H., Kim D.Y., Kim J.S. Simultaneous mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee replacement in the same patients. A prospective comparison of mid-term outcomes using a similar design of prosthesis. Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89:904.
23. Wohlrab D., Ditl J., Herrschelmann R., et al. Does the NexGen LPS flex mobile knee prosthesis offer advantages compared to the NexGen LPS?-a comparison of clinical and radiological results. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2005, 43:567.
24. Insall J.N., Dorr L.D., Scott R.D., et al. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 1989, 248:13.
25. Ware J.E., Kosinski M., Keller S.D. How to score the SF-12 physical and mental health summary scales 1998, Quality Metric Inc, Lincoln (R.I.).
26. Mahoney O.M., McClung C.D., dela Rosa M.A., et al. The effect of total knee arthroplasty design on extensor mechanism function. J Arthroplasty 2002, 17:416.
27. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 1992, 112:155.
28. Bhan S., Malhotra R., Kiran E.K., et al. A comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87A:2290.
29. Biau D., Mullins M.M., Judet T., et al. Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term comparative clinical results of 216 prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006, 14:927.
30. Buechel F.F. Mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty. Rotation is our salvation. J Arthroplasty 2004, 19:27.
31. Callaghan J.J., O'Rourke M.R., Iossi M.F., et al. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of fifteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:1995.
32. Kaper B.P., Smith P.N., Bourne R.B., et al. Medium-term results of a mobile bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999, 367:201.
33. Sorrells R.B., Voorhorst P.E., Murphy J.A., et al. Uncemented rotating-platform total knee replacement: a five to twelve year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86:2156.
34. Kim Y.H., Kook H.K., Kim J.S. Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 2001, 392:101.
35. Gupta S.K., Ranawat A.S., Shah V., et al. The P.F.C. sigma RP-F TKA designed for improved performance: a matched-pair study. Orthopedics 2006, 29:S49.
36. Dennis D.A., Komistek R.D., Mahfouz M.R., et al. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: do the polyethylene bearings rotate?. Clin Orthop 2005, 440:88.