Abstract
Total knee replacement (TKR) design aims to restore normal kinematics with emphasis on flexion range. The survivorship of a TKR is dependent on the kinematics in six-degrees-of-freedom (6-DoF). Stepping up, such as stair ascent is a kinematically demanding activity after TKR. The debate about design choice has not yet been informed by 6-DoF in vivo kinematics. This prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared kneeling kinematics in three TKR designs.
68 participants were randomised to receive either cruciate retaining (CR-FB), rotating platform (CR-RP) or posterior stabilised (PS-FB) prostheses. Image quality was sufficient for 49 of these patients to be included in the final analysis following a minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients completed a step-up task while being imaged using single-plane fluoroscopy. Femoral and tibial computer-aided design (CAD) models for each of the TKR designs were registered to the fluoroscopic images using bespoke software OrthoVis to generate six-degree-of-freedom kinematics. Differences in kinematics between designs were compared as a function of flexion.
There were no differences in terminal extension between the groups. The CR-FB was further posterior and the CR-RP was more externally rotated at terminal extension compared to the other designs. Furthermore, the CR-FB designs was more posteriorly positioned at each flexion angle compared to both other designs. Additionally, the CR-RP design had more external femoral rotation throughout flexion when compared with both fixed bearing designs. However, there were no differences in total rotation for either step-up or down. Visually, it appears there was substantial variability between participants in each group, indicating unique patient-specific movement patterns.
While use of a specific implant design does influence some kinematic parameters, the overall patterns are similar. Furthermore, there is high variability indicating patient-specific kinematic patterns. At a group level, none of these designs appear to provide markedly different step-up kinematic patterns. This is important for patient expectations following surgery. Future work should aim to better understand the unique patient variability.
