Objectives

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. However, polyethylene wear can significantly reduce the lifespan of UKA. Different bearing designs and materials for UKA have been developed to change the rate of polyethylene wear. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the effect of insert conformity and material on the predicted wear in mobile-bearing UKA using a previously developed computational wear method.

Aims. Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) with a flat tibial plateau has not performed well in the lateral compartment, leading to a high rate of dislocation. For this reason, the Domed Lateral UKA with a biconcave bearing was developed. However, medial and lateral tibial plateaus have asymmetric anatomical geometries, with a slightly dished medial and a convex lateral plateau. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the extent at which the normal knee kinematics were restored with different tibial insert designs using computational simulation. Methods. We developed three different tibial inserts having flat, conforming, and anatomy-mimetic superior surfaces, whereas the inferior surface in all was designed to be concave to prevent dislocation. Kinematics from four male subjects and one female subject were compared under deep knee bend activity. Results. The conforming design showed significantly different kinematics in femoral rollback and internal rotation compared to that of the intact knee. The flat design showed significantly different kinematics in femoral rotation during high flexion. The anatomy-mimetic design preserved normal knee kinematics in femoral rollback and internal rotation. Conclusion. The anatomy-mimetic design in lateral mobile UKA demonstrated restoration of normal knee kinematics. Such design may allow achievement of the long sought normal knee characteristics post-lateral mobile UKA. However, further in vivo and clinical studies are required to determine whether this design can truly achieve a more normal feeling of the knee and improved patient satisfaction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(7):421–428