Fixed Versus Mobile Bearings in Total Ankle Arthroplasty

  • Murray J. PennerEmail author
  • Derek Butterwick


Much controversy exists in the general arthroplasty literature regarding bearing options (Heisel et al., J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1366–79, 2003). One particularly robust facet of this debate has revolved around the choice between fixed-bearing designs and mobile-bearing designs. Although the majority of this discussion over the past few decades has focused on bearing choices in total knee arthroplasty, the controversy remains very active within the total ankle replacement (TAR) domain as well. One of the primary reasons for the ongoing debate is that both mobile- and fixed-bearing concepts have noteworthy theoretical advantages and disadvantages. At the same time, both designs are capable of yielding excellent patient outcomes as well as potential failures.


STAR ankle INBONE total ankle replacement Salto Talaris ankle prosthesis Total ankle arthroplasty Complications 


  1. 1.
    Heisel C, Silva M, Schmalzried TP. Bearing surface options for total hip replacement in young patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(7):1366–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD. Kinematics of mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2005;54:207–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Naudie DD, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA, Rorabeck CH. Wear and osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(1):53–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Szivek JA, Anderson PL, Benjamin JB. Average and peak contact stress distribution evaluation of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11(8):952–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benjamin J, Szivek J, Dersam G, Persselin S, Johnson R. Linear and volumetric wear of tibial inserts in posterior cruciate-retaining knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:131–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wen Y, Liu D, Huang Y, Li B. A meta-analysis of the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011;131(10):1341–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang C-H, Liau J-J, Cheng C-K. Fixed or mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg. 2007;2:1.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conditt MA, Ismaily SK, Alexander JW, Noble PC. Backside wear of ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene tibial inserts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1031–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conditt MA, Thompson MT, Usrey MM, Ismaily SK, Noble PC. Backside wear of polyethylene tibial inserts: mechanism and magnitude of material loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:326–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Epidemiology of osteolysis: backside implant wear. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:243–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Insall JN. Adventures in mobile-bearing knee design: a mid-life crisis. Orthopedics. 1998;21:1021–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van der Voort P, Pijls BG, Nouta KA, Valstar ER, Jacobs WC, Nelissen RG. A systematic review and meta-regression of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee replacement in 41 studies. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(9):1209–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R. Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1205–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mahoney OM, Kinsey TL, D’Errico TJ, Shen J. The John Insall Award: no functional advantage of a mobile bearing posterior stabilized TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):33–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parratte S, Pauly V, Aubaniac JM, Argenson JN. No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):61–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Post ZD, Matar WY, van de Leur T, Grossman EL, Austin MS. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: better than a fixed-bearing? J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6):998–1003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bistolfi A, Massazza G, Lee GC, Deledda D, Berchialla P, Crova M. Comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 116 months. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(12):e83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim YH, Kim JS, Choe JW, Kim HJ. 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(10):866–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shaw JA. The definitive answer: fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing TKA: commentary on an article by Young-Hoo Kim, MD, 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(10):e69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zeng Y, Shen B, Yang J, Zhou ZK, Kang PD, Pei FX. Is there reduced polyethylene wear and longer survival when using a mobile-bearing design in total knee replacement? A meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(8):1057–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glazebrook MA, Arsenault K, Dunbar M. Evidence-based classification of complications in total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(10):945–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krause FG, Windolf M, Bora B, Penner MJ, Wing KJ, Younger AS. Impact of complications in total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis analyzed with a validated outcome measurement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(9):830–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kobayashi A, Minoda Y, Kadoya Y, Ohashi H, Takaoka K, Saltzman C. Ankle arthroplasties generate wear particles similar to knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;424:69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dalat F, Barnoud R, Fessy MH, Besse JL, French Association of Foot Surgery AFCP. Histologic study of periprosthetic osteolytic lesions after AES total ankle replacement. A 22 case series. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(6 Suppl):S285–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yoon HS, Lee J, Choi WJ, Lee JW. Periprosthetic osteolysis after total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(1):14–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Buechel FF, Northcut EJ, Hajner ME. A determination of ankle kinematics using fluoroscopy. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(4):343–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lundberg A, Svensson OK, Németh G, Selvik G. The axis of rotation of the ankle joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71(1):94–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Falsig J, Hvid I, Jensen NC. Finite element stress analysis of some ankle joint prostheses. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 1986;1(2):71–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aitken GK, Bourne RB, Finlay JB, Rorabeck CH, Andreae PR. Indentation stiffness of the cancellous bone in the distal human tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;201:264–70.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fukuda T, Haddad SL, Ren Y, Zhang LQ. Impact of talar component rotation on contact pressure after total ankle arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. Foot Ankle Int. 2010;31(5):404–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Espinosa N, Walti M, Favre P, Snedeker JG. Misalignment of total ankle components can induce high joint contact pressures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1179–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koivu H, Mackiewicz Z, Takakubo Y, Trokovic N, Pajarinen J, Konttinen YT. RANKL in the osteolysis of AES total ankle replacement implants. Bone. 2012;51(3):546–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Daniels T, Penner M, Mayich D, Bridge M. Prospective clinical and radiographic intermediate outcomes of 113 Scandinavian total ankle arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004; 93-B(Supp IV).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gaudot F, Colombier JA, Bonnin M, Judet T. A controlled, comparative study of a fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(2):131–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Haskell A, Mann RA. Perioperative complication rate of total ankle replacement is reduced by surgeon experience. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(5):283–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Richardson A, DeOrio J, Parekh S. Arthroscopic debridement: effective treatment for impingement after total ankle arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2012;5(2):171–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsSt. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and Providence Health CareVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations