The mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty was designed to increase the contact area with the polyethylene bearing, through the functional range of motion, and subsequently decrease the wear rate previously seen in fixed-bearing implants. In the literature there is no clear clinical advantage between the different designs in the short to mid-term follow-up. The purpose of this study was to compare the results between a cruciate retaining mobile-bearing design (SAL II, Sulzer) and two cruciate retaining fixed-bearing designs (AMK, Depuy, and the Genesis II, Smith and Nephew). Ninety patients were randomised to receive either the mobile-bearing or one of the two fixed-bearing designs between 2000 and 2002. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the WOMAC and the SF-12, both of which are validated scores. One patient was withdrawn due to dementia before three months and eleven patients died. Two patients were revised due to infection (both had received the SAL II). One patient was revised for aseptic loosening and one patient was revised for pain (both had received the Genesis II). Of the 74 patients (77 knees) that remain, they were last seen on average 6.4 years (2–10) after their surgery. Their average age at the surgery was 69.2 years (52–81).Purpose
Method
We prospectively reviewed patients who had undergone a Revision Total Knee Replacement (TKR) to a mobile-bearing arthroplasty. We wanted to assess functional outcome and survival, and to determine whether the perceived advantages of a mobile-bearing arthroplasty could be expanded to the revision situation. We divided the patients into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 40 patients who were revised to a rotating platform, with or without stems and augments, and group 2 consisted of 41 patients revised to a varus-valgus constrained mobile-bearing device that still allowed rotation of the bearing. All were assessed with Knee Society Knee Scores, WOMAC, and New Jersey Knee Scores and standard radiographs by an independent examiner. Group 1 had an average age of 71 years at revision and a follow-up of 5–9 years. Seventy-six percent had excellent or good results with 89% survival at 9 years. Group 2 had an average age of 71 years at revision and a follow-up of 2–5 years. The patient satisfaction score was 8/10 and the normality score was 6.8/10. There was only one case of instability in both groups in a patient with a patellar fracture. A mobile-bearing TKR can be used in the revision situation with acceptable clinical results and patient outcome without compromising the stability or survivorship in the short-term. It has proved to be a “patellar-friendly” procedure with reduced re-operation for patellar complications; however longer-term studies are required to determine whether the rates of polyethylene wear are reduced by the use of a more congruent articulation.
