There is ongoing debate on the benefits of fixed versus mobile bearing Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR). We report the results from a randomised controlled trial comparing fixed and mobile bearing of the same UKR prosthesis. Forty patients were randomized to receive identical femoral components and either a fixed or mobile bearing tibial component. At 6.5 years follow-up 37% of the mobile bearing design had been revised and 14% for the fixed bearing design. The main reasons for revision were pain and loosening. These results were compared with data from The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) that show a cumulative percent revision of 24.2% for the mobile bearing Preservation UKR at 6.5 years. All locally explanted mobile bearings were examined microscopically, and 83% demonstrated significant backside wear. Constraint on the undersurface of the bearing coupled with a congruent upper surface may have contributed to the excessive revision rate. This is the first randomised controlled trial examining mobile and fixed variations of the same UKR prosthesis and shows this design of UKR with the mobile bearing has an unacceptably high revision rate and patients with this knee design should be closely monitored.

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare a single-incision minimally invasive (MI) posterior approach with a standard posterior approach in a double-blind prospective randomised controlled trial.