Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the migration of the femoral component, five years postoperatively, between patients with a highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) insert and those with a conventional polyethylene (PE) insert in an uncemented Triathlon fixed insert cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondary aims included clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We have previously reported the migration and outcome of the tibial components in these patients.

Aims

The primary objective of this study was to compare the five-year tibial component migration and wear between highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) inserts and conventional polyethylene (PE) inserts of the uncemented Triathlon fixed insert cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondary objectives included clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR) was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of polyethylene inserts. However, no consistent clinical advantages of mobile- over fixed-bearing (FB) TKR have been found. In this study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome scores. Furthermore, we determined which modifying variables affected the outcome.

A systematic search of the literature was conducted to collect clinical trials comparing MB and FB in primary TKR. The primary outcomes were revision rates for any reason, aseptic loosening and wear. Secondary outcomes included range of movement, Knee Society score (KSS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form 12 (SF-12) score and radiological parameters. Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect.

Our search yielded 1827 publications, of which 41 studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising over 6000 TKRs. Meta-analyses showed no clinically relevant differences in terms of revision rates, clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between MB and FB TKRs. It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1209–16.

This single-blinded randomised controlled trial investigated whether one design of mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR) has any advantage over a fixed-bearing (FB) design on long-term fixation as measured by radiostereometry. The amount of wear underneath the mobile bearing was also evaluated. A series of 42 knees was randomised to MB or FB tibial components with appropriate polyethylene inserts and followed for between ten and 12 years, or until the death of the patient. The polyethylene in the MB group was superior in that it was gamma-irradiated in inert gas and was calcium-stearate free; the polyethylene in the FB group was gamma-irradiated in air and contained calcium stearate. In theory this should be advantageous to the wear rate of the MB group. At final follow-up the overall mean migration was 0.75 mm (sd 0.76) in the MB group and 0.66 mm (sd 0.4) in the FB group, with the FB group demonstrating more posterior tilt and the MB group more internal rotation. In the FB group there was one revision for aseptic loosening, but none in the MB group. There were no significant differences in clinical or radiological scores.

For the MB group, the mean linear wear rate on the under-surface was 0.026 mm/year (sd 0.014). This was significantly smaller than the wear rate of 0.11 mm/year (sd 0.06) in the MB between femur and polyethylene (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, even in a best-case setting the mobile bearings of this TKR design had no apparent advantage in terms of fixation over the FB knee prosthesis at ten to 12 years. The wear underneath the mobile bearing was small and is unlikely to be clinically relevant.