Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(05): 513-524
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1678679
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Efficacy of a Second-Generation Rotating Bearing Tibial Platform in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study with Registry Analysis

Corey Scholes 
1   EBM Analytics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Milad Ebrahimi
1   EBM Analytics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Nalan Ektas
1   EBM Analytics, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
John Ireland
2   Sydney Bone and Joint Clinic, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

06 July 2018

27 December 2018

Publication Date:
05 March 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

There is a lack of clinical outcomes reported for the rotating bearing knee (RBK) total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which is a second-generation rotating platform knee, with purported benefits over earlier versions. The purpose of the study was to report the complications, short-term (minimum 1 year) patient-reported outcomes and long-term (up to 15 years) procedure survival in a consecutive series of patients receiving a rotating platform TKA (RBK) from an independent clinic. A retrospective analysis of a single-surgeon, private/public practice, with prospectively collected data in a subset of patients were performed. A total of 1,130 procedures (primary, revision from unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to TKA) were crossmatched with manufacturer records. Clinical outcomes (complications, reoperations) were summarized and linked to patient-reported outcome measures (Eq. 5D, KSS-function, Oxford knee score [OKS]). OKS results were classified using minimally clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). PROMs were summarized and regression models used to determine relationships between patient factors and outcomes in this cohort. Cumulative percent revision was reported by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and compared between the senior author and national data using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. We report a complication rate of 19.7% with the majority (> 60%) being thromboembolic events and complaints of stiffness. Significant improvements were observed in general health, knee pain, and function with > 89% exceeding the MCID for the OKS and > 65% exceeding the PASS for the OKS at an average follow-up of 3.2 years. We report a cumulative revision rate of 4.3% at 5 years and 4.8% at 14 years, with significantly lower revision rates in females and patients aged 55 to 64 years compared with AOANJRR data for fixed bearing designs. The RBK rotating platform TKA provides good functional outcomes, with relatively low revision and complications rates at up to 14 years follow-up. This design in conjunction with a gap balancing technique may be advantageous in certain patient subgroups.

Keywords

knee arthroplasty - rotating bearing - complications - patient reported outcomes
 

  • References

  • 1 Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R. Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (08) 1205-1213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bell SW, Young P, Drury C. , et al. Component rotational alignment in unexplained painful primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2014; 21 (01) 272-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE. Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (356) 144-153
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Buechel FF, Pappas MJ. The New Jersey Low-Contact-Stress Knee Replacement System: biomechanical rationale and review of the first 123 cemented cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1986; 105 (04) 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Moskal JT, Capps SG. Rotating-platform TKA no different from fixed-bearing TKA regarding survivorship or performance: a meta-analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (07) 2185-2193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 van der Voort P, Pijls BG, Nouta KA, Valstar ER, Jacobs WCH, Nelissen RGHH. A systematic review and meta-regression of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee replacement in 41 studies. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (09) 1209-1216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wen Y, Liu D, Huang Y, Li B. A meta-analysis of the fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131 (10) 1341-1350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hopley CDJ, Crossett LS, Chen AF. Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship after total knee arthroplasty using a rotating platform knee prosthesis: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (01) 68-77
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Zürcher AW, Stiehl JB, Pöll RG. Low-contact-stress knee arthroplasty: past history or ahead of time?. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (03) e402-e412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ridgeway S, Moskal JT. Early instability with mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a series of 25 cases. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (06) 686-693
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sadoghi P, Leithner A, Weber P. , et al. Radiolucent lines in low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a blinded and matched case control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Innocenti B, Truyens E, Labey L, Wong P, Victor J, Bellemans J. Can medio-lateral baseplate position and load sharing induce asymptomatic local bone resorption of the proximal tibia? A finite element study. J Orthop Surg Res 2009; 4: 26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Global Orthopaedic Technology. RBK rotating bearing knee system: surgical technique. Global Orthopaedic Technology. Available at: http://www.globalortho.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/GM05003-ST305-RBK-Classic-Surgical-Technique-REV-2.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2016 annual report. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/275066/Hip%2C%20Knee%20%26%20Shoulder%20Arthroplasty . Accessed January 15, 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Goodfellow JW, O'Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (12) 1628-1631
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Choy W-S, Yang D-S, Lee K-W, Lee S-K, Kim K-J, Chang S-H. Cemented versus cementless fixation of a tibial component in LCS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12) 2397-2401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (24) 2287-2293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2017 annual report. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/397736/Hip%2C%20Knee%20%26%20Shoulder%20Arthroplasty . Accessed January 15, 2019
    PubMed
  • 19 von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. ; STROBE Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007; 4 (10) e296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Healy WL, Della Valle CJ, Iorio R. , et al. Complications of total knee arthroplasty: standardized list and definitions of the Knee Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 215-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW. The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and short form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1933-1939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Keurentjes JC, Van Tol FR, Fiocco M. , et al. Patient acceptable symptom states after totalhip or knee replacement at mid-term follow-up: thresholds of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Bone Joint Res 2014; 3 (01) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG. , et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4 (10) e297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 ACORN: Arthroplasty clinical outcomes registry, annual report 2016. Available at: www.acornregistry.org/images/Acorn-Annual-Report-2016-v12.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2019
    PubMed
  • 25 Cheng M, Chen D, Guo Y, Zhu C, Zhang X. Comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty with a mean five-year follow-up: A meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med 2013; 6 (01) 45-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Huang C-H, Huang C-H, Liau J-J, Lu Y-C, Chang T-K, Cheng C-K. Specific complications of the mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2009; 19 (01) 1-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Toomey SD, Daccach JA, Shah JC, Himden SE, Lesko JP, Hamilton WG. Comparative incidence of patellofemoral complications between 2 total knee arthroplasty systems in a multicenter, prospective clinical study. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (9S): S187-S192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kapoor V, Chatterjee D, Hazra S. , et al. Retrospective comparison of functional and radiological outcome, between two contemporary high flexion knee designs. SICOT J 2016; 2: 35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jolles BM, Grzesiak A, Eudier A. , et al. A randomised controlled clinical trial and gait analysis of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements with a five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (05) 648-655
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Kalisvaart MM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Stuart MJ, Hanssen AD. Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: no clinically detectable differences at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (06) 481-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bailey O, Ferguson K, Crawfurd E. , et al. No clinical difference between fixed- and mobile-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (06) 1653-1659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 The New Zealand joint registry: eighteen year report. January 1999–December 2016. Available at: https://nzoa.org.nz/system/files/DH7827_NZJR_2017_Report_v4_26Oct17.pdf . Accessed January 15, 2019
    PubMed
  • 34 National joint registry (England Wales): 14th annual report 2017. Available at: https://www.hqip.org.uk/resource/national-joint-registry-14th-annual-report-2017/#.XD3HnvZuKM8 . Accessed January 15, 2019
    PubMed
  • 35 Han H, Oh S, Chang CB, Kang S-B. Anthropometric difference of the knee on MRI according to gender and age groups. Surg Radiol Anat 2016; 38 (02) 203-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Li P, Tsai T-Y, Li J-S. , et al. Morphological measurement of the knee: race and sex effects. Acta Orthop Belg 2014; 80 (02) 260-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R. , et al. Anatomical analysis of the femoral condyle in normal and osteoarthritic knees. J Orthop Res 2004; 22 (01) 104-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hamada D, Wada K, Mikami H. , et al. The posterior condylar cartilage affects rotational alignment of the femoral component in varus knee osteoarthritis. J Med Invest 2017; 64 (1.2): 24-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lakstein D, Zarrabian M, Kosashvili Y, Safir O, Gross AE, Backstein D. Revision total knee arthroplasty for component malrotation is highly beneficial: a case control study. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (07) 1047-1052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lee JH, Barnett SL, Patel JJ, Nassif NA, Cummings DJ, Gorab RS. Ten year follow-up of gap balanced, rotating platform total knee arthroplasty in patients under 60 years of age. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (01) 132-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Tsukeoka T, Tsuneizumi Y, Yoshino K. The rectangular flexion gap is associated with an increased knee flexion angle in a cruciate-sacrificing rotating platform mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2017; 22 (02) 313-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Valkering KP, Breugem SJ, van den Bekerom MP, Tuinebreijer WE, van Geenen RCI. Effect of rotational alignment on outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2015; 86 (04) 432-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Thielemann FW, Konstantinids L, Herget GW. , et al. Effect of rotational component alignment on clinical outcome 5 to 7 years after TKA with the columbus knee system. Orthopedics 2016; 39 (3, Suppl): S50-S55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Panni AS, Ascione F, Rossini M. , et al. Tibial internal rotation negatively affects clinical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (06) 1636-1644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar