Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty

No clinically detectable differences at five years

Michael M. Kalisvaart, Mark Pagnano, Robert T. Trousdale, Michael J. Stuart, Arlen D. Hanssen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: For some surgeons, rotating-platform total knee designs are an intellectually appealing option to use for total knee arthroplasty because of the contention that they can self-align and accommodate small mismatches in the rotational position of the tibial and femoral components. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to determine if a posterior-stabilized, rotating-platform knee design provided better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years of follow-up when compared with a fixed-bearing design. Methods: This randomized clinical trial of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties involved a single type of distal femoral implant (posterior-stabilized) and three different types of tibial implant (all-polyethylene fixed-bearing, modular-metalbacked fixed-bearing, and rotating-platform). The three tibial implant groups were balanced dynamically with a computerized randomization process that accounted for patient age, sex, and body mass index; surgeon; and implant type. Patients returned for examination and radiographs at three months, one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. Results: Knee range of motion was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform tibial component groups at two years (mean, 111°, 111°, and 110°, respectively) or five years (mean, 110°, 109°, and 109°, respectively). Function, as measured with Knee Society scores, was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform groups at two years (mean, 90, 91, and 91 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 88, 89, and 88 points, respectively). Stair-climbing scores were not significantly different among the three groups at two years (mean, 39, 40, and 39 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 37, 40, and 36 points, respectively). There were four revisions: one in the all-polyethylene group (patellar fracture), two in the modular metal-backed group (aseptic loosening), and one in the rotating-platform group (deep infection). Conclusions: In this randomized clinical trial, the rotating-platform total knee design was reliable and durable but did not provide better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years postoperatively when compared with a posterior-stabilized, fixed-bearing design incorporating either an all-polyethylene or a modular-metal-backed tibial component. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)481-489
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A
Volume94
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 21 2012

Fingerprint

Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Polyethylene
Knee
Randomized Controlled Trials
Metals
Thigh
Random Allocation
Articular Range of Motion
Body Mass Index
Infection

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty : No clinically detectable differences at five years. / Kalisvaart, Michael M.; Pagnano, Mark; Trousdale, Robert T.; Stuart, Michael J.; Hanssen, Arlen D.

In: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series A, Vol. 94, No. 6, 21.03.2012, p. 481-489.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{73c718e0fce54b9186ad77c916e89f1c,
title = "Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: No clinically detectable differences at five years",
abstract = "Background: For some surgeons, rotating-platform total knee designs are an intellectually appealing option to use for total knee arthroplasty because of the contention that they can self-align and accommodate small mismatches in the rotational position of the tibial and femoral components. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to determine if a posterior-stabilized, rotating-platform knee design provided better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years of follow-up when compared with a fixed-bearing design. Methods: This randomized clinical trial of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties involved a single type of distal femoral implant (posterior-stabilized) and three different types of tibial implant (all-polyethylene fixed-bearing, modular-metalbacked fixed-bearing, and rotating-platform). The three tibial implant groups were balanced dynamically with a computerized randomization process that accounted for patient age, sex, and body mass index; surgeon; and implant type. Patients returned for examination and radiographs at three months, one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. Results: Knee range of motion was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform tibial component groups at two years (mean, 111°, 111°, and 110°, respectively) or five years (mean, 110°, 109°, and 109°, respectively). Function, as measured with Knee Society scores, was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform groups at two years (mean, 90, 91, and 91 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 88, 89, and 88 points, respectively). Stair-climbing scores were not significantly different among the three groups at two years (mean, 39, 40, and 39 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 37, 40, and 36 points, respectively). There were four revisions: one in the all-polyethylene group (patellar fracture), two in the modular metal-backed group (aseptic loosening), and one in the rotating-platform group (deep infection). Conclusions: In this randomized clinical trial, the rotating-platform total knee design was reliable and durable but did not provide better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years postoperatively when compared with a posterior-stabilized, fixed-bearing design incorporating either an all-polyethylene or a modular-metal-backed tibial component. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.",
author = "Kalisvaart, {Michael M.} and Mark Pagnano and Trousdale, {Robert T.} and Stuart, {Michael J.} and Hanssen, {Arlen D.}",
year = "2012",
month = "3",
day = "21",
doi = "10.2106/JBJS.K.00315",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "481--489",
journal = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume",
issn = "0021-9355",
publisher = "Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty

T2 - No clinically detectable differences at five years

AU - Kalisvaart, Michael M.

AU - Pagnano, Mark

AU - Trousdale, Robert T.

AU - Stuart, Michael J.

AU - Hanssen, Arlen D.

PY - 2012/3/21

Y1 - 2012/3/21

N2 - Background: For some surgeons, rotating-platform total knee designs are an intellectually appealing option to use for total knee arthroplasty because of the contention that they can self-align and accommodate small mismatches in the rotational position of the tibial and femoral components. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to determine if a posterior-stabilized, rotating-platform knee design provided better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years of follow-up when compared with a fixed-bearing design. Methods: This randomized clinical trial of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties involved a single type of distal femoral implant (posterior-stabilized) and three different types of tibial implant (all-polyethylene fixed-bearing, modular-metalbacked fixed-bearing, and rotating-platform). The three tibial implant groups were balanced dynamically with a computerized randomization process that accounted for patient age, sex, and body mass index; surgeon; and implant type. Patients returned for examination and radiographs at three months, one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. Results: Knee range of motion was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform tibial component groups at two years (mean, 111°, 111°, and 110°, respectively) or five years (mean, 110°, 109°, and 109°, respectively). Function, as measured with Knee Society scores, was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform groups at two years (mean, 90, 91, and 91 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 88, 89, and 88 points, respectively). Stair-climbing scores were not significantly different among the three groups at two years (mean, 39, 40, and 39 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 37, 40, and 36 points, respectively). There were four revisions: one in the all-polyethylene group (patellar fracture), two in the modular metal-backed group (aseptic loosening), and one in the rotating-platform group (deep infection). Conclusions: In this randomized clinical trial, the rotating-platform total knee design was reliable and durable but did not provide better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years postoperatively when compared with a posterior-stabilized, fixed-bearing design incorporating either an all-polyethylene or a modular-metal-backed tibial component. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AB - Background: For some surgeons, rotating-platform total knee designs are an intellectually appealing option to use for total knee arthroplasty because of the contention that they can self-align and accommodate small mismatches in the rotational position of the tibial and femoral components. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to determine if a posterior-stabilized, rotating-platform knee design provided better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years of follow-up when compared with a fixed-bearing design. Methods: This randomized clinical trial of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties involved a single type of distal femoral implant (posterior-stabilized) and three different types of tibial implant (all-polyethylene fixed-bearing, modular-metalbacked fixed-bearing, and rotating-platform). The three tibial implant groups were balanced dynamically with a computerized randomization process that accounted for patient age, sex, and body mass index; surgeon; and implant type. Patients returned for examination and radiographs at three months, one year, two years, and five years postoperatively. Results: Knee range of motion was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform tibial component groups at two years (mean, 111°, 111°, and 110°, respectively) or five years (mean, 110°, 109°, and 109°, respectively). Function, as measured with Knee Society scores, was not significantly different among the all-polyethylene, modular-metal-backed, and rotating-platform groups at two years (mean, 90, 91, and 91 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 88, 89, and 88 points, respectively). Stair-climbing scores were not significantly different among the three groups at two years (mean, 39, 40, and 39 points, respectively) or five years (mean, 37, 40, and 36 points, respectively). There were four revisions: one in the all-polyethylene group (patellar fracture), two in the modular metal-backed group (aseptic loosening), and one in the rotating-platform group (deep infection). Conclusions: In this randomized clinical trial, the rotating-platform total knee design was reliable and durable but did not provide better maximum knee flexion, better function, or better durability at five years postoperatively when compared with a posterior-stabilized, fixed-bearing design incorporating either an all-polyethylene or a modular-metal-backed tibial component. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84860619867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84860619867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2106/JBJS.K.00315

DO - 10.2106/JBJS.K.00315

M3 - Article

VL - 94

SP - 481

EP - 489

JO - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

JF - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume

SN - 0021-9355

IS - 6

ER -