We report a large study of 331 patients at two years post operation who were prospectively randomised to receive either a rotating platform or a fixed bearing knee replacement of an otherwise identical design. The mobile bearing total knee replacement was developed as there are theoretical benefits in that it may allow a better range of motion, better patella tracking and lower wear rates. This study was designed to see if these potential advantages are borne out in practice when using a cruciate retaining design.Summary
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. A total of 683 patients undergoing TKR 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 preoperatively 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.Introduction
Methods
