Literature DB >> 16877599

A kinematic comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing knee replacements.

H P Delport1, S A Banks, J De Schepper, J Bellemans.   

Abstract

Mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements have been developed as an alternative to the standard fixed- and mobile-bearing designs. However, little is known about the in vivo kinematics of this new group of implants. We investigated 31 patients who had undergone a total knee replacement with a similar prosthetic design but with three different options: fixed-bearing posterior cruciate ligament-retaining, fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised. To do this we used a three-dimensional to two-dimensional model registration technique. Both the fixed- and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised configurations used the same femoral component. We found that fixed-bearing posterior stabilised and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrated similar kinematic patterns, with consistent femoral roll-back during flexion. Mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrated greater and more natural internal rotation of the tibia during flexion than fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. Such rotation occurred at the interface between the insert and tibial tray for mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. However, for fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs, rotation occurred at the proximal surface of the bearing. Posterior cruciate ligament-retaining knee replacements demonstrated paradoxical sliding forward of the femur. We conclude that mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements reproduce internal rotation of the tibia more closely during flexion than fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. Furthermore, mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrate a unidirectional movement which occurs at the upper and lower sides of the mobile insert. The femur moves in an anteroposterior direction on the upper surface of the insert, whereas the movement at the lower surface is pure rotation. Such unidirectional movement may lead to less wear when compared with the multidirectional movement seen in fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements, and should be associated with more evenly applied cam-post stresses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16877599     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B8.17529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  33 in total

1.  Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Shuichi Matsuda; Hideki Mizu-uchi; Shingo Fukagawa; Hiromasa Miura; Ken Okazaki; Hideo Matsuda; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Mobility of the rotating platform in low contact stress knee arthroplasty is durable.

Authors:  Arthur Zürcher; Kim van Hutten; Jaap Harlaar; Ruud Pöll
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  In vivo three-dimensional kinematics of total elbow arthroplasty using fluoroscopic imaging.

Authors:  Kazuma Futai; Tetsuya Tomita; Takaharu Yamazaki; Tsuyoshi Murase; Hideki Yoshikawa; Kazuomi Sugamoto
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-02-23       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  The John Insall Award: no functional advantage of a mobile bearing posterior stabilized TKA.

Authors:  Ormonde M Mahoney; Tracy L Kinsey; Theresa J D'Errico; Jianhua Shen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Intraoperative evaluation of total knee replacement: kinematic assessment with a navigation system.

Authors:  Daniela Casino; Stefano Zaffagnini; Sandra Martelli; Nicola Lopomo; Simone Bignozzi; Francesco Iacono; Alessandro Russo; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-12-20       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  In vivo knee kinematics during high flexion after a posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Angela L Moynihan; Kartik M Varadarajan; George R Hanson; Sang-Eun Park; Kyung Wook Nha; Jeremy F Suggs; Todd Johnson; Guoan Li
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Mid-term results with a highly congruous mobile-bearing knee prosthesis.

Authors:  Roger G Lemaire
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-08-22       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Mobile-bearing prosthesis and intraoperative gap balancing are not predictors of superior knee flexion: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Yukihide Minoda; Hiroyoshi Iwaki; Mitsuhiko Ikebuchi; Taku Yoshida; Shigekazu Mizokawa; Maki Itokazu; Hiroaki Nakamura
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-01-17       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Improved early clinical outcomes of RP/PS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Tae Kyun Kim; Hyung Joon Cho; Yeon Gwi Kang; Sung Ju Kim; Chong Bum Chang
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-03-19       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Survivorship at minimum 10-year follow-up of a rotating-platform, mobile-bearing, posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michele Ulivi; Luca Orlandini; Valentina Meroni; Olmo Consonni; Valerio Sansone
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.