Introduction

Unidirectional mobile bearing knees (RP) were developed to optimise the tibio-femoral articulation in an effort to enhance function and reduce polyethylene wear. The self aligning bearing should also benefit the patello-femoral joint further improving outcome. This study was designed to assess whether these potential benefits are realised in the clinical setting.

Introduction

Previous studies comparing cruciate retaining (CR) and cruciate sacrificing - posterior stabilised (PS) TKRs have failed to demonstrate a difference in outcomes based on numbers of patients recruited.

This large study compares clinical outcomes in groups having PS and CR TKR and reports the results at 1 and 2 years post-operatively.

Summary: This study compares the outcomes of a large series of 683 cruciate sacrificing (PS) and cruciate retaining (CR) TKRs at minimum 2 years follow-up. Patients with a PS component showed a greater improvement in the pain and knee components of the American Knee Society Score at both 1 and 2 years post-operatively and also demonstrated a greater improvement in knee flex-ion at both time points.

Introduction: Excellent clinical results have been reported with both PS and CR TKR designs. A number of randomised trials comparing the two techniques have failed to demonstrate a difference in outcomes based on the numbers of patients recruited.

It is hypothesised that cruciate retention in total knee arthroplasty may result in improved kinematics of the knee by maintaining the femoral rollback seen in the normal knee, resulting in improved function. This study compares clinical outcomes in groups having PS and CR total knee arthroplasty and report the results at 1 and 2 years post-operatively.

Methods: A total of 683 patients undergoing TKR surgery were consecutively enrolled in a prospective multi-centre study with 2 arms. In the first arm patients receiving a PS component were randomised to receive either a mobile bearing (176 patients) or fixed bearing (176 patients) implant. In the second arm, patients receiving a CR component were randomised to receive either a mobile bearing (161 patients) or fixed bearing (170 patients) implant. All patients were assessed pre-operatively and at one and two years postoperatively using standard tools (Oxford, AKSS, Patellar Score) by independent nurse specialists. The data from the 2 arms of the trial were then analysed to compare differences between PS and CR implants.

Results: Patients with a PS component showed a greater improvement in the pain component of the AKSS at 1 year (p=0.0003) and at 2 years (p=0.0085) post-op.

Patients with a PS also showed a greater improvement in the AKSS knee score at 1 (p=0.0001) and 2 (p=0.001) years.

Knee flexion improvement was also greater in the PS group at 1 (p=0< 0.0001) and 2 (p=0.0035) years.

PS knees also achieved better outcomes in these variables in the mobile and fixed subgroups.

There were no other significant differences in the scores between the two groups at any stage.

Conclusion: This study reports on a large prospective multi-centre series of PS and CR TKRs. Improvements in pain and knee components of the AKSS score and knee flexion at both 1 and 2 years follow-up were greater in PS knees. Although this difference was statistically significant, differences in real terms were relatively small.

Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the impact of a self aligning unidirectional mobile bearing TKR on lateral patella release rates within a knee system using a common femoral component for both the fixed and mobile variants.

Methods and Results: A total of 357 patients undergoing TKR were randomly allocated to receive either a Mobile Bearing (181 knees) or a Fixed Bearing (176 knees) PSTKR. Further sub-randomisation into patella resurfacing or retention was performed for both designs. The need for lateral patella release was assessed during surgery.

The lateral release rate was similar for fixed bearing (9%) and mobile bearing (9%) implants (p=0.95). Patella resurfacing resulted in lower lateral release rates when compared to patella retention (5.5% vs 13.5%; p=0.012). This difference was most marked in the mobile bearing group where the lateral release rate was 16% with patella retention compared to 3% with patella resurfacing (p=0.009).

Conclusion: The addition of a rotating platform tibial component has had no impact on the lateral release rate in this study. Optimising patella geometry by patella resurfacing appears more important than tibial bearing deisgn per se. The combination of a mobile bearing design and patella resurfacing appears the optimise patello-femoral tracking.

Aim: This study aims to establish whether or not mobile bearing TKR delivers the often stated benefits improved function and range of motion when compared to its fixed bearing equivalent.

Methods and Results: A total of 357 patients undergoing TKR were randomly allocated to receive either a Mobile Bearing (181 knees) or a Fixed Bearing (176 knees) PSTKR. Further subrandomisation into patella resurfacing or retention was performed for both designs. All knees were scored using standard tools (Oxford, AKSS and SF12) preoperatively and at intervals postoperatively by independent observers.

The range of motion increased from an average of 96 deg. (pre-op) to an average of 109 deg. at 1 year post-op for both the fixed and mobile bearing design. The management of the patella had no effect in either group.

The knee society and knee function scores increased equally for both the fixed bearing and mobile bearing knees with no differences noted.

Conclusion: There were no measurable differences in range of motion and clinical outcome scores at 1 year post-op for a mobile bearing design over its fixed bearing equivalent. It is likely that any potential advantages of a mobile bearing design will manifest in longevity rather than function.