Advertisement

Rationale and Long Term Outcome of Rotating Platform Total Knee Replacement

Abstract

Rotating platform (RP) total knee replacement (TKR) designs, were introduced in the late 1970s aiming to more closely recreate normal knee kinematics and to minimize some of the problems (mainly wear and loosening) seen with early fixed bearing TKR implants. High conformity bearing surfaces without significant increased stresses at the polyethylene-baseplate interfaces and having the potential for self-alignment of the rotating polyethylene with the femoral component, correcting thus possible mistakes of tibial tray positioning, are some of the theoretical advantages of the RP TKR designs. Short and mid-term results have been promising but RP TKA failed to demonstrate significant advantages over the well time-tested fixed bearing designs probably due to the fact that both designs show excellent survivorship in the available to date long term follow-up. Longer follow-up studies in special cohorts of patients (i.e. young patients) are needed to show whether RP designs fare better than their non-RP counterparts. Herein, we present the best available evidence regarding the long term results of RP TKR from selected studies with minimum 10 years follow-up.

Keywords

Total Knee Replacement Aseptic Loosening Knee Society Score Oxford Knee Score Polyethylene Insert 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Akagi M, Mori S, Nishimura S, et al. Variability of extraarticular tibial rotation references for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:172–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argenson JN, Parratte S, Ashour A, et al. The outcome of rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty with cement at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:638–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ball ST, Sanchez HB, Mahoney OM, et al. Fixed versus rotating platform total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:531–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bartel DL, Bicknell VL, Wright TM. The effect of conformity, thickness, and material on stresses in ultra-high molecular weight components for total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:1041–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buechel Sr FF, Buechel Jr FF, Pappas MJ, et al. Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;388:41–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Callaghan JJ. Mobile-bearing knee replacement: clinical results: a review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:221–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Callaghan JJ, O’rourke MR, Iossi MF, et al. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. a concise follow-up, at a minimum of fifteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1995–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Callaghan JJ, Wells CW, Liu SS, et al. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1635–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng CK, Huang CH, Liau JJ, et al. The influence of surgical malalignment on the contact pressures of fixed and mobile bearing knee prostheses–a biomechanical study. Clin Biomech. 2003;18:231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng M, Chen D, Guo Y, et al. Comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty with a mean five-year follow-up: a meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med. 2013;6:45–51.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’lima DD, Chen PC, Colwell Jr CW. Polyethylene contact stresses, articular congruity, and knee alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:232–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD. Kinematics of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:207–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, et al. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: do the polyethylene bearings rotate? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:88–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Duffy GP, Crowder AR, Trousdale RR, et al. Cemented total knee arthroplasty using a modern prosthesis in young patients with osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:67–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gioe TJ, Glynn J, Sembrano J, et al. Mobile and fixed-bearing (all-polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs. A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2104–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldstein WM, Branson JJ, Simmons C. Implant sizing of the P.F.C. sigma rotating-platform total knee system. Orthopedics. 2006;29:S30–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hanusch B, Lou TN, Warriner G, et al. Functional outcome of PFC Sigma fixed and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop. 2010;34:349–54.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hopley CD, Crossett LS, Chen AF. Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship after total knee arthroplasty using a rotating platform knee prosthesis: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:68–77 e61–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howell SM, Chen J, Hull ML. Variability of the location of the tibial tubercle affects the rotational alignment of the tibial component in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2013;21:2288–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang CH, Ma HM, Lee YM, et al. Long-term results of low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:265–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Incavo SJ, Coughlin KM, Pappas C, et al. Anatomic rotational relationships of the proximal tibia, distal femur, and patella: implications for rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:643–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacobs W, Anderson P, Limbeek J, et al. Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for total knee arthroplasty for post-operative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD003130.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim YH, Kim JS. Comparison of anterior-posterior-glide and rotating-platform low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:1239–47.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Choe JW, et al. Long-term comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements in patients younger than fifty-one years of age with osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:866–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS. The long-term results of simultaneous fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee replacements performed in the same patient. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1317–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ladermann A, Lubbeke A, Stern R, et al. Fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised, clinical and radiological study with mid-term results at 7 years. Knee. 2008;15:206–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Li YL, Wu Q, Ning GZ, et al. No difference in clinical outcome between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKA: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2014;22:565–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lonner JH, Siliski JM, Scott RD. Prodromes of failure in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:488–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Luna JT, Sembrano JN, Gioe TJ. Mobile and fixed-bearing (all-polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(Suppl 1 Pt 2):240–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lutzner J, Krummenauer F, Gunther KP, et al. Rotational alignment of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty is better at the medial third of tibial tuberosity than at the medial border. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:57.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matsuda S, White SE, Williams 2nd VG, et al. Contact stress analysis in meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:699–706.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meftah M, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Ten-year follow-up of a rotating-platform, posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:426–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Stuart MJ, et al. Rotating platform knees did not improve patellar tracking: a prospective, randomized study of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:221–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Post ZD, Matar WY, Van De Leur T, et al. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: better than a fixed-bearing? J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:998–1003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ranawat CS, Komistek RD, Rodriguez JA, et al. In vivo kinematics for fixed and mobile-bearing posterior stabilized knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:184–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today-has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1774.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sharma A, Komistek RD, Ranawat CS, et al. In vivo contact pressures in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:404–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, et al. Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1205–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith TO, Ejtehadi F, Nichols R, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2010;18:325–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stukenborg-Colsman C, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, et al. Tibiofemoral contact stress after total knee arthroplasty: comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing inlay designs. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73:638–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ulivi M, Orlandini L, Meroni V, et al. Survivorship at minimum 10-year follow-up of a rotating-platform, mobile-bearing, posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2014;1–7.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Der Bracht H, Van Maele G, Verdonk P, et al. Is there any superiority in the clinical outcome of mobile-bearing knee prosthesis designs compared to fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis designs in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee joint? A review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2010;18:367–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Van Jonbergen HP, Reuver JM, Mutsaerts EL, et al. Determinants of anterior knee pain following total knee replacement: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2014;22:478–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wen Y, Liu D, Huang Y, et al. A meta-analysis of the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131:1341–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yang CC, Mcfadden LA, Dennis DA, et al. Lateral retinacular release rates in mobile- versus fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2656–61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.2nd Orthopaedic Department, School of MedicineAthens University, Konstantopouleio General Hospital Nea IoniaAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations