There is conflicting evidence about the merits
of mobile bearings in total knee replacement, partly because most randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) have not been adequately powered. We report
the results of a multicentre RCT of mobile There was no significant difference between the groups pre-operatively:
mean OKS was 17.18 ( In this appropriately powered RCT, over the first five years
after total knee replacement functional outcomes, re-operation rates
and healthcare costs appear to be the same irrespective of whether
a mobile or fixed bearing is used. Cite this article:
We have carried out a long-term survival analysis of a prospective, randomised trail comparing cemented with cementless fixation of press-fit condylar primary total knee replacements. A consecutive series of 501 replacements received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation. The patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (2.7 to 13.0) to establish the rate of survival of the implant. The ten-year survival was compared using life-table and Cox’s proportional hazard analysis. No patient was lost to follow-up. The survival at ten years was 95.3% (95% CI 90.3 to 97.8) and 95.6% (95% CI 89.5 to 98.2) in the cemented and cementless groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for failure in cemented compared with cementless prostheses was 0.97 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.6). A comparison of the clinical outcome at ten years in 80 knees showed no difference between the two groups. The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement at ten years is good irrespective of the method of fixation and brings into question the use of more expensive cementless implants.