Research Article| Volume 27, ISSUE 8, P1452-1459, September 2012

In Vitro Comparison of Fixed- and Mobile Meniscal–Bearing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasties

Effect of Design, Kinematics, and Condylar Liftoff
Published:April 13, 2012DOI:


      Unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) has become a popular alternative to total knee arthroplasty or high tibial osteotomy for unicompartmental knee conditions. This study investigated the effects of kinematics and femoral liftoff on the wear of fixed and mobile versions of a UKA design. The fixed bearing had lower wear than the mobile bearing under all conditions. Wear was higher in lateral bearings than medial bearings, indicating that the increased sliding distance laterally had a greater effect than the greater loading medially. Femoral condylar liftoff resulted in increased wear in the medial UKAs but reduced wear in the lateral UKAs for both the bearing designs. The reduced wear rates observed for the fixed UKA bearings highlight the potential for a longer osteolysis-free clinical outcome for these devices.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Berger R.A.
        • et al.
        Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 999
        • Murray D.W.
        • Goodfellow J.W.
        • O'Connor J.J.
        The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80-B: 983
        • Whittaker J.P.
        • et al.
        PAPER 168: minimum five-year comparison of fixed and mobile bearing medial compartment arthroplasties.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92-B: 35-c-
        • Bonutti P.M.
        • Dethmers D.A.
        contemporary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: fixed vs mobile bearing.
        J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23: 24.e2
        • O'Rourke M.R.
        • et al.
        The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; 440: 27
        • Laskin R.S.
        Unicompartmental knee replacement: some unanswered questions.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 392: 267
        • Confalonieri N.
        • et al.
        Bi-unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty: a matched paired study with early clinical results.
        Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009; 129: 1157
        • Bartley R.E.
        • et al.
        Polyethylene wear in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; 299: 18
        • Insall J.
        • Aglietti P.
        A five to seven-year follow-up of unicondylar arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1980; 62: 1329
        • Blunn G.W.
        • et al.
        Wear in retrieved condylar knee arthroplasties: a comparison of wear in different designs of 280 retrieved condylar knee prostheses.
        J Arthroplasty. 1997; 12: 281
        • Palmer S.H.
        • Morrison P.J.M.
        • Ross A.C.
        Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998; 350: 143
        • Ackroyd C.E.
        • et al.
        A comparative study of the medial St Georg Sled and Kinematic total knee arthroplasties: ten-year survivorship.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84-B: 667
        • Squire M.W.
        • et al.
        Unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum 15 year followup study.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; 367: 61
        • Svard U.C.G.
        • Price A.J.
        Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a survival analysis of an independent series.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83-B: 191
        • Argenson J.N.A.
        • Chevrol-Benkeddache Y.
        • Aubaniac J.M.
        Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84: 2235
        • Pennington D.W.
        • et al.
        Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85: 1968
        • Mariani E.M.
        • et al.
        Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2007; 22: 81
        • Laurent M.P.
        • et al.
        In vitro lateral versus medial wear of a knee prosthesis.
        Wear. 2003; 255: 1101
        • Scholes S.C.
        • Unsworth A.
        Pitch-based carbon-fibre–reinforced poly (ether-ether-ketone) OPTIMA assessed as a bearing material in a mobile bearing unicondylar knee joint.
        Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2009; 223: 13
        • Johnson T.S.
        • et al.
        The effect of displacement control input parameters on tibiofemoral prosthetic knee wear.
        Wear. 2001; 250: 222
        • Barnett P.I.
        • et al.
        Comparison of wear in a total knee replacement under different kinematic conditions.
        J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2001; 12: 1039
        • McEwen H.M.J.
        • et al.
        The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements.
        J Biomech. 2005; 38: 357
        • Galvin A.L.
        • et al.
        Effect of conformity and contact stress on wear in fixed-bearing total knee prostheses.
        J Biomech. 2009; 42: 1898
        • Stiehl J.B.
        • et al.
        In vivo kinematic analysis of a mobile bearing total knee prosthesis.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997; 345: 60
        • Insall J.N.
        • et al.
        Correlation between condylar lift-off and femoral component alignment.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; 403: 143
        • Jennings L.
        • et al.
        The influence of femoral condylar lift-off on the wear of artificial knee joints.
        Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2007; 221: 305
        • Hanson G.R.
        • et al.
        In vivo kneeling biomechanics after posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty.
        J Orthop Sci. 2007; 12: 476
        • Lafortune M.A.
        • et al.
        Three-dimensional kinematics of the human knee during walking.
        J Biomech. 1992; 25: 347
        • Barbour P.S.M.
        • Barton D.C.
        • Fisher J.
        The influence of stress conditions on the wear of UHMWPE for total joint replacements.
        J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1997; 8: 603
        • Wang A.
        • Essner A.
        • Klein R.
        Effect of contact stress on friction and wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in total hip replacement.
        Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 2001; 215: 133
        • Kurtz S.M.
        The clinical performance of UHMWPE in knee replacements.
        in: Kurtz S. UHMWPE biomaterials handbook. 2nd ed. Academic Press, Boston2009: 160
        • Ashraf T.
        • et al.
        Polyethylene wear in a non-congruous unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval analysis.
        Knee. 2004; 11: 177