header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:



Full Access



8th Combined Meeting Of Orthopaedic Research Societies (CORS)



The effect of the geometry of the tibial polyethylene insert was investigated in vivo loaded conditions.


The decision to choose CR (cruciate retaining) insert or CS (condylar stabilised) insert during TKA remains a controversial issue. Triathlon CS type has a condylar stabilised insert with an increased anterior lip that can be used in cases where the PCL is sacrificed but a PS insert is not used. The difference of the knee kinematics between CR and CS insert remains unclear. This study measured knee kinematics of deep knee flexion under load in two insert designs using 2D/3D registration technique.

Patients and Methods

We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 20 knees (18 patients) implanted with Triathlon CR components (Stryker Orthopedics, Mahwah, NJ), 10 knees in the CR insert with retaining PCL, and 10 knees in the CS insert with sacrificing PCL. All TKAs were judged clinically successful (Knee Society knee scores >90), with no ligamentous laxity or pain. Mean patient age at the time of operation was 72±12 years in CR and 69±9 years in CS. Mean period between operation and surveillance was 20±11 months in CR and 11±5 months in CS. Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient did a wight-bearing deep knee bending motion. Femorotibial motion including tibial polyethylene insert was analyzed using 2D/3D registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design (CAD) models to reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated the range of motion, femoral axial rotation, and antero-posterior (AP) translation of the nearest points.


The average range of motion between femoral component and tibial component was 113.3±22.3° in CR and 107.4±13.1° in CS. The amount of femoral axial rotation from 0° to 110° flexion was 8.6±2.9° in CR insert, and 7.6±2.6° in CS insert, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the amount of femoral external rotation (p=0.71). In CR insert, the medial contact point moved 4.0±2.9mm anteriorly from 0° to 100° flexion. The lateral contact point moved 2.0±1.1mm anteriorly from 60° to 90° flexion. In CS insert, the medial contact point moved 6.4±2.1mm anteriorly from 20° to 100° flexion. The lateral contact point moved 1.9±1.7mm anteriorly from 50° to 110° flexion. There was significant differences were observed in the amount of medial anterior translation between the two insert (medial; p=0.04, lateral; p=0.94).

Discussion and Conclusion

Triathlon CR and CS insert had a similar kinematics pattern. However, there was significant differences were observed in the amount of medial anterior translation between the two insert. These results indicated that the increased anterior lip could not control medial anterior sliding. The posterior part of the two insert were almost same, so the kinematics are similar.