The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 207-212, February 2012

Greater Satisfaction in Older Patients With a Mobile-Bearing Compared With Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty

Received 21 November 2010; received in revised form 5 March 2011; accepted 18 May 2011. published online 13 July 2011.

Abstract 

A prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind trial was performed to compare outcomes between 61 mobile- and 58 fixed-bearing primary TKAs in patients aged 70 years or older. At last follow-up, no difference was found for Knee Society score. The mobile-bearing group had greater knee flexion at 3 and 6 months, but this was similar at 2 years. The patient satisfaction was better in the mobile-bearing group than in fixed-bearing group, with respect to Knee Society functional score, Western Ontario MacMasters University score, Short-Form 12 score, and visual analog scale score. A multivariate analysis confirmed that the only independent factors predictive of postoperative quality of life were early postoperative flexion. We believe that better perception and satisfaction with mobile-bearing in older patients was due to the earlier regain of their knee flexion. Our results justify the use of mobile-bearing design in the older population.

Keywords: knee arthroplasty, mobile-bearing, fixed-bearing, older patients

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The Conflict of Interest statement associated with this article can be found at doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.05.021.

PII: S0883-5403(11)00261-0

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.05.021

Refers to erratum:

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 207-212, February 2012