Meta-analyses showed no clinical ly relevant differences in terms of revision rates , clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between MB and FB TKRs .
It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice
Mobile-bearing ( MB ) total knee replacement ( TKR ) was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of polyethylene inserts .
However , no consistent clinical advantages of mobile- over fixed-bearing ( FB ) TKR have been found .
In this study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome scores .
Furthermore , we determined which modifying variables affected the outcome .
Less Anterior Knee Pain with a Mobile-bearing Prosthesis Compared with a Fixed-bearing Prosthesis
Abstract  Anterior knee pain is one of the major short-term complaints after TKA . Since the introduction of the mobile-bearing TKA , numerous studies have attempted to confirm the theoretical advantages of a mobile-bearing TKA over a fixed-bearing TKA but most show little or no actual benefits . The concept of self-alignment for the mobile bearing suggests the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA would provide a lower incidence of anterior knee pain compared with a fixed-bearing TKA . We therefore asked whether the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee would in fact reduce anterior knee pain . We r and omized 103 patients scheduled for cemented three-component TKA for osteoarthrosis in a prospect i ve , double-blind clinical trial . With a 1-year followup , more patients experienced persistent anterior knee pain in the posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing group ( 10 of 53 , 18.9 % ) than in the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing group ( two of 47 , 4.3 % ) . No differences were observed for range of motion , visual analog scale for pain , Oxford 12-item question naire , SF-36 , or the American Knee Society score . The posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee therefore seems to provide a short-term advantage compared with the posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing knee . Level of Evidence : Level I , therapeutic study . See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence
Meta-analyses showed no clinical ly relevant differences in terms of revision rates , clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between MB and FB TKRs .
It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice
Mobile-bearing ( MB ) total knee replacement ( TKR ) was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of polyethylene inserts .
However , no consistent clinical advantages of mobile- over fixed-bearing ( FB ) TKR have been found .
In this study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome scores .
Furthermore , we determined which modifying variables affected the outcome .