Risk of revision for fixed versus mobile-bearing primary total knee replacements.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty prostheses were developed to reduce wear and revision rates; however, these benefits remain unproven. The purposes of this study were to compare the short-term survivorship and to determine risk factors for revision of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee replacements. METHODS A prospective cohort study of primary total knee arthroplasties performed from 2001 to 2009 was conducted with use of a community total joint replacement registry. Patient characteristics and procedure details were identified. Cox regression models were used. Bearing type was investigated as a risk factor for revision while adjusted for other risk factors such as age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, sex, race, diagnosis, bilateral procedures, cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized components, surgical approach, fixation, patellar resurfacing, hospital and surgeon volumes, and fellowship training. RESULTS The study cohort consisted of 47,339 total knee arthroplasties, with 62.6% of the procedures in women. Fixed bearings were used in 41,908 knees (88.5%) and mobile bearings in 4830 (10.2%). Rotating-platform designs were used in all mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties (3112 had a Rotating-Platform Press-Fit Condylar posterior-stabilized design; 1053, a Low Contact Stress [LCS] design; and 665, a Rotating-Platform Press-Fit Condylar cruciate-retaining design). Patients who received fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems were older (mean age, 68.1 years) than those who received mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems (mean age, 62.2 years); the difference was significant (p < 0.001). Overall, 515 knees (1.1%) were revised for reasons other than infection. The survival rate was 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.4% to 98.0%) at 6.7 years. The adjusted risk of aseptic revision for the LCS total knee replacements was 2.01 times (95% CI, 1.41 to 2.86) higher than that for fixed-bearing total knee replacements (p < 0.001).There was no significant revision risk for the other mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems. There was no association with surgeon and hospital case volumes and the risk of revision total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS Our study suggests the benefit of potential long-term wear reduction with the LCS implant may not be realized in a community-based setting, where a variety of surgical skills, surgical experience, and diverse patient demographic factors may affect early outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level II.

DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01363
01020201520162017
Citations per Year

Citation Velocity: 7

Averaging 7 citations per year over the last 3 years.

Learn more about how we calculate this metric in our FAQ.

Cite this paper

@article{Namba2012RiskOR, title={Risk of revision for fixed versus mobile-bearing primary total knee replacements.}, author={Robert S. Namba and Maria C. S. Inacio and Elizabeth W. Paxton and Christopher F. Ake and Cunlin Wang and Thomas P. Gross and Danica Marinac-Dabic and Art Sedrakyan}, journal={The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume}, year={2012}, volume={94 21}, pages={1929-35} }