Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Functional outcome of PFC Sigma fixed and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomised controlled trial

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in functional outcome between the PFC Sigma fixed-bearing and rotating-platform total knee replacement systems. One hundred twenty patients were randomised to receive either a fixed-bearing or rotating-platform PFC Sigma total knee replacement. Range of movement (ROM), Oxford knee score (OKS) and Knee Society score (KSS) were assessed independently before and one year after surgery. Weight-bearing X-rays were taken immediately and one year post surgery to determine the incidence of osteolysis and loosening. At a mean follow-up of 13.4 months there was no statistically significant difference in mean ROM, OKS and KSS between the two groups. There was no evidence of osteolysis or loosening in either of the groups and no revision for infection or implant failure. This study shows that there is no statistically significant difference in functional outcome between the two types of implants at short-term follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ, D’Alessio J (2001) Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:41–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher J, McEwen H, Tipper J, Jennings L, Farrar R, Stone M, Ingham I (2006) Wear-simulation analysis of rotating-platform mobile-bearing knees. Orthopedics 29(9 Suppl):S36–S41

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Callaghan JJ, Insall JN, Greenwald AS et al (2000) Mobile-bearing knee replacement: concepts and results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82(7):1020–1041

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kim YH, Kook HK, Kim JS (2001) Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:101–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D et al (2003) A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. A multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(1):62–67

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Woolson ST, Northrop GD (2004) Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a clinical and radiologic study. J Arthroplasty 19(2):135–140

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, De Luca L (2005) Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 20(2):145–153

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bhan S, Malhotra R, Kiran EK, Shukla S, Bijjawara M (2005) A comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a minimum follow-up of 4.5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(10):2290–2296

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Watanabe T, Tomita T, Fujii M, Hashimoto J, Sugamoto K, Yoshikawa H (2005) Comparison between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing knees in bilateral total knee replacements. Int Orthop 29(3):179–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Park KK, Chang CB, Kang YG, Seong SC, Kim TK (2007) Correlation of maximum flexion with clinical outcome after total knee replacement in Asian patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(5):604–608

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jacobs W, Anderson P, Limbeek J, Wymenga A (2004) 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 (2):CD003130

  12. Ranawat AS, Rossi R, Loreti I, Rasquinha VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS (2004) Comparison of the PFC Sigma fixed-bearing and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty in the same patient: short-term results. J Arthroplasty 19(1):35–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Evans MC, Parsons EM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS, Zurakowski D (2006) Comparative flexion after rotating-platform vs fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(7):985–991

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Luring C, Bathis H, Oczipka F et al (2006) Two-year follow-up on joint stability and muscular function comparing rotating versus fixed bearing TKR. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(7):605–611

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim YH, Kim DY, Kim JS (2007) Simultaneous mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee replacement in the same patients. A prospective comparison of mid-term outcomes using a similar design of prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(7):904–910

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ladermann A, Lubbeke A, Stern R, Riand N, Fritschy D (2008) Fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised, clinical and radiological study with mid-term results at 7 years. Knee 15(3):206–210

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Higuchi H, Hatayama K, Shimizu M, Kobayashi A, Kobayashi T, Takagishi K (2009) Relationship between joint gap difference and range of motion in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised study between different platforms. Int Orthop 33:997–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(1):63–69

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Health Research Unit (2009) A randomised trial of different knee prosthesis (KAT). http://www.abdn.ac.uk/hsru/research/assessment/interventional/kat/. Accessed 30 Oct 2009

  21. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Oh KJ, Pandher DS, Lee SH, Sung Joon SD,Jr, Lee ST (2008) Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24(6):873–884

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wylde V, Learmonth I, Potter A, Bettinson K, Lingard E (2008) Patient-reported outcomes after fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial using the Kinemax total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90(9):1172–1179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Biau D, Mullins MM, Judet T, Piriou P (2006) Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term comparative clinical results of 216 prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 14(10):927–933

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cheng K, Ridley D, Bird J, McLeod G (2009) Patients with fixed flexion deformity after total knee arthroplasty do just as well as those without: ten-year prospective data. Int Orthop. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0801-6

  26. Bert JM (1990) Dislocation/subluxation of meniscal bearing elements after New Jersey low-contact stress total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 254:211–215

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Weaver JK, Derkash RS, Greenwald AS (1993) Difficulties with bearing dislocation and breakage using a movable bearing total knee replacement system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 290:244–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

This study has been sponsored by DePuy International who have provided resources to cover the additional costs of conducting the research over and above standard clinical practice as well as statistical support. None of the authors have received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Trauma & Orthopaedics, The James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK

    Birgit Hanusch, Thai Nurn Lou, Anthony Hui & Paul Gregg

  2. DePuy International, Leeds, UK

    Gary Warriner

Authors
  1. Birgit Hanusch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thai Nurn Lou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Warriner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony Hui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Gregg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Birgit Hanusch.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hanusch, B., Lou, T.N., Warriner, G. et al. Functional outcome of PFC Sigma fixed and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomised controlled trial. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 34, 349–354 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0901-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0901-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation