Aims. The primary objective of this study was to compare migration of the cemented ATTUNE fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component with the cemented Press-Fit Condylar (PFC)-sigma fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component. The secondary objectives included comparing clinical and radiological outcomes and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Methods. A single blinded randomized, non-inferiority study was conducted including 74 patients. Radiostereometry examinations were made after weight bearing, but before hospital discharge, and at three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMS were collected preoperatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Radiographs for measuring radiolucencies were collected at two weeks and two years postoperatively. Results. The overall migration (mean maximum total point motion (MPTM)) at two years was comparable: mean 1.13 mm (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97 to 1.30) for the ATTUNE and 1.16 mm (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.35) for the PFC-sigma. At two years, the mean backward tilting was -0.43° (95% CI, -0.65 to -0.21) for the ATTUNE and 0.08° (95% CI -0.16 to 0.31), for the PFC-sigma. Overall migration between the first and second postoperative year was negligible for both components. The clinical outcomes and PROMs improved compared with preoperative scores and were not different between groups. Radiolucencies at the implant-cement interface were mainly seen below the medial baseplate: 17% in the ATTUNE and 3% in the PFC-sigma at two weeks, and at two years 42% and 9% respectively (p = 0.001). Conclusion. In the first two postoperative years the initial version of the ATTUNE tibial component was not inferior with respect to overall migration, although it showed relatively more backwards tilting and radiolucent lines at the implant-cement interface than the PFC-sigma. The version of the ATTUNE tibial component examined in this study has subsequently undergone modification by the manufacturer. Level of Evidence: 1 (randomized controlled clinical trial). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1158–1166

Abstract. Introduction. Total knee replacement (TKR) in patients with skeletal dysplasia is technically challenging surgery due to deformity, joint contracture, and associated co-morbidities. The aim of this study is to follow up patients with skeletal dysplasia following a TKR. Methodology. We retrospectively reviewed 22 patients with skeletal dysplasia who underwent 31 TKRs at our institution between 2006 and 2022. Clinical notes, operative records and radiographic data were reviewed. Results. Achondroplasia was the most common skeletal dysplasia (8), followed by Chondrodysplasia punctata (7) and Spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia (5). There were fourteen men and eight women with mean age of 51 years (28 to 73). The average height of patients was 1.4 metres (1.16–1.75) and the mean weight was 64.8 Kg (34.3–100). The mean follow up duration was 68.32 months (1–161). Three patients died during follow up. Custom implants were required in twelve patients (38.71%). Custom jigs were utilised in six patients and two patients underwent robotic assisted surgery. Hinged TKR was used in seventeen patients (54.84%), posterior stabilised TKR in nine patients (29.03%), and cruciate retaining TKR in five patients (16.13%). One patient underwent a patella resurfacing for persistent anterior knee pain and another had an intra-operative medial tibial plateau fracture which was managed with fixation. No revisions occurred during the follow up period. Conclusion. Despite the technical challenges and complexity of TKR within this unique patient group, we demonstrate good implant survivorship during the study period. Cross sectional imaging is recommended preoperatively for precise planning and templating

Purpose. The mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty was designed to increase the contact area with the polyethylene bearing, through the functional range of motion, and subsequently decrease the wear rate previously seen in fixed-bearing implants. In the literature there is no clear clinical advantage between the different designs in the short to mid-term follow-up. The purpose of this study was to compare the results between a cruciate retaining mobile-bearing design (SAL II, Sulzer) and two cruciate retaining fixed-bearing designs (AMK, Depuy, and the Genesis II, Smith and Nephew). Method. Ninety patients were randomised to receive either the mobile-bearing or one of the two fixed-bearing designs between 2000 and 2002. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the WOMAC and the SF-12, both of which are validated scores. One patient was withdrawn due to dementia before three months and eleven patients died. Two patients were revised due to infection (both had received the SAL II). One patient was revised for aseptic loosening and one patient was revised for pain (both had received the Genesis II). Of the 74 patients (77 knees) that remain, they were last seen on average 6.4 years (2–10) after their surgery. Their average age at the surgery was 69.2 years (52–81). Results. There was no statistically significant difference between the change scores (postoperative score minus preoperative score) for each of the outcome measures between the mobile-bearing and the two fixed-bearing designs. Conclusion. In conclusion, after mid-term follow-up there is no clinical difference between a cruciate retaining mobile-bearing design and two cruciate retaining fixed-bearing designs

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

Inverse Kinematic Alignment (iKA) and Gap Balancing (GB) aim to achieve a balanced TKA via component alignment. However, iKA aims to recreate the native joint line versus resecting the tibia perpendicular to the mechanical axis. This study aims to compare how two alignment methods impact 1) gap balance and laxity throughout flexion and 2) the coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK). Two surgeons performed 75 robotic assisted iKA TKA's using a cruciate retaining implant. An anatomic tibial resection restored the native joint line. A digital joint tensioner measured laxity throughout flexion prior to femoral resection. Femoral component position was adjusted using predictive planning to optimize balance. After femoral resection, final joint laxity was collected. Planned GB (pGB) was simulated for all cases posthoc using a neutral tibial resection and adjusting femoral position to optimize balance. Differences in ML balance, laxity, and CPAK were compared between planned iKA (piKA) and pGB. ML balance and laxity were also compared between piKA and final (fiKA). piKA and pGB had similar ML balance and laxity, with mean differences <0.4mm. piKA more closely replicated native MPTA (Native=86.9±2.8°, piKA=87.8±1.8°, pGB=90±0°) and native LDFA (Native=87.5±2.7°, piKA=88.9±3°, pGB=90.8±3.5°). piKA planned for a more native CPAK distribution, with the most common types being II (22.7%), I (20%), III (18.7%), IV (18.7%) and V (18.7%). Most pGB knees were type V (28.4%), VII (37.8%), and III (16.2). fiKA and piKA had similar ML balance and laxity, however fiKA was more variable in midflexion and flexion (p<0.01). Although ML balance and laxity were similar between piKA and pGB, piKA better restored native joint line and CPAK type. The bulk of pGB knees were moved into types V, VII, and III due to the neutral tibial cut. Surgeons should be cognizant of how these differing alignment strategies affect knee phenotype

Both gap balancing and measured resection for TKA will work and these techniques are often combined in TKA. The only difference is really the workflow. The essential difference in gap balancing is that you determine femoral component rotation by cutting the distal femur and the proximal tibia, and then using a spacer to determine femoral rotation. I prefer measured resection because I am, for most cases, a cruciate retaining surgeon. It is not ideal to determine femoral rotation based upon a gap balancing if you retain the cruciate. It is also important to maintain the joint line, especially in cruciate retention, in order to reproduce more normal kinematics and balance the knee throughout the range of flexion and extension. It is my opinion that the soft tissue balancing is easier to do with measured resection and the workflow is easier. The sequence of cuts and soft tissue balance is different if one is a gap balancing surgeon. This is more conducive for people who are cruciate substituters, but more difficult in a varus cruciate retaining knee. In that situation, if you determine femoral rotation by gap balancing with the tibia before you have cleared the posterior medial osteophytes in the varus knee, and remove the last bit of meniscus, you could artificially over rotate the femoral component causing posteromedial laxity. The major difference is that cutting the posterior cruciate will open the flexion space and allow the surgeon easier access to the posteromedial corner of the knee before the posterior femoral cut is made. It is also important to remember that in most cases cruciate substitution surgeons will make the flexion space 2 mm smaller than the extension space to compensate for the flexion space opening when the posterior cruciate is cut. The extensor mechanism plays an important role in flexion balance and should only be tested once the patella is prepared and the patella is back in the trochlear groove. I prefer gap balancing in most revision knees as I am virtually always substituting for the posterior cruciate in that case. My technique for measured resection is to assess the character of the knee prior to surgery. Is it varus? Is it valgus? Does it hyperextend? Does it have a flexion contracture? Would the knee be considered tight or loose? I cut the distal femur first, based upon measured resection. I use anatomic landmarks to determine femoral rotation. My most consistent landmark is the transtrochlear line, which is not always from the top of the notch to the bottom of the trochlea. I will use the medial epicondyle and the posterior reference in a varus knee, but not in a valgus knee. The tibial cut, also by measured resection, is easier once the femur has been prepared. The patellar cut is also a measured resection. Having done a preliminary soft tissue balance based upon the deformity, I will then use trial components to finish the soft tissue balance. In summary, both techniques can be used successfully in a cruciate substituting knee, but measured resection, in my opinion, is preferable especially in varus arthritis when the posterior cruciate is retained

Fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee designs are both currently used in clinical practice with little evidence- based research available to determine superiority of one system. We performed a prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial to compare a mobile bearing to two standard fixed bearing implants. A single observer was used to measure all range of motion scores. We evaluated the short and long- term outcomes of the SAL. ®. (mobile bearing) versus the AMK. ®. and Genesis II. ®. (fixed bearings) total knee joint replacements. Minimum two- year follow-up revealed no differences in the outcome measures (WOMAC, SF-12, Knee Society Clinical Rating System). The purpose of this study was to compare the results between a cruciate retaining mobile bearing total knee (SAL. ®. , Sulzer) and two cruciate retaining fixed bearing total knee prostheses (AMK. ®. , Depuy and Genesis II. ®. , Smith and Nephew). Ninety patients were randomized to receive a SAL, AMK, or GenesisII prostheses. Patients were evaluated pre-operatively, at three, twelve months and annually thereafter. Patient demographics, radiographs, and multiple outcome measures (WOMAC, SF-12 and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System) were evaluated. No patients were lost to follow-up. One patient was withdrawn due to dementia before three months, one patient died prior to the two year follow up, and one patient was revised for infection at 6 months leaving eighty-seven patients at an average follow-up of 3.37 years (range 2.91 – 4.44 years). There were no significant differences in any outcome measures or radiographic findings. There were no differences in KSCRS at two years (SAL - 167, AMK – 158, GenesisII – 166). There were no differences in knee flexion at two years (SAL – 117. °. , AMK – 115. °. , GenesisII – 118. °. ). No differences in multiple outcome measures were seen between a cruciate retaining mobile bearing and two cruciate retaining fixed bearing total knee prostheses. In this prospective randomized clinical trial no differences could be seen between a mobile bearing and two fixed bearing designs at a minimum of two years follow-up. Long-term evaluation will be required to comment on differences in polyethylene wear and implant longevity. Funding: London Health Sciences Centre Internal Research Fund

Fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee designs are both currently used in clinical practice with little evidence- based research available to determine superiority of one system. We performed a prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial to compare a mobile bearing to two standard fixed bearing implants. A single observer was used to measure all range of motion scores. We evaluated the short and long- term outcomes of the SAL. ®. (mobile bearing) versus the AMK. ®. and Genesis II. ®. (fixed bearings) total knee joint replacements. Minimum two- year follow-up revealed no differences in the outcome measures (WOMAC, SF-12, Knee Society Clinical Rating System). The purpose of this study was to compare the results between a cruciate retaining mobile bearing total knee (SAL. ®. , Sulzer) and two cruciate retaining fixed bearing total knee prostheses (AMK. ®. , Depuy and Genesis II. ®. , Smith and Nephew). Ninety patients were randomized to receive a SAL, AMK, or GenesisII prostheses. Patients were evaluated pre-operatively, at three, twelve months and annually thereafter. Patient demographics, radiographs, and multiple outcome measures (WOMAC, SF-12 and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System) were evaluated. No patients were lost to follow-up. One patient was withdrawn due to dementia before three months, one patient died prior to the two year follow up, and one patient was revised for infection at 6 months leaving eighty-seven patients at an average follow-up of 3.37 years (range 2.91 – 4.44 years). There were no significant differences in any outcome measures or radiographic findings. There were no differences in KSCRS at two years (SAL - 167, AMK – 158, GenesisII – 166). There were no differences in knee flexion at two years (SAL – 117. °. , AMK – 115. °. , GenesisII – 118. °. ). No differences in multiple outcome measures were seen between a cruciate retaining mobile bearing and two cruciate retaining fixed bearing total knee prostheses. In this prospective randomized clinical trial no differences could be seen between a mobile bearing and two fixed bearing designs at a minimum of two years follow-up. Long-term evaluation will be required to comment on differences in polyethylene wear and implant longevity. Funding: London Health Sciences Centre Internal Research Fund

Introduction and Aims: Fixed bearing and mobile bearing knee designs are currently used in clinical practice with little evidence based research available to determine superiority of one system. The purpose of this study was to compare the results between a cruciate retaining mobile bearing and two cruciate retaining fixed bearing total knee prostheses. Method: We performed a prospective, randomised, blinded clinical trial to compare a mobile bearing to two standard fixed-bearing implants. We evaluated the short- and long-term outcomes of the SAL. ®. (Sulzer) mobile bearing versus the AMK. ®. (Depuy) and Genesis II. ®. (Smith & Nephew) fixed bearing, total knee joint replacements. Ninety patients were randomised to receive one of the three prostheses. Patients were evaluated pre-operatively, at three, 12 months and annually thereafter. Patient demographics, radiographs, and multiple outcome measures (WOMAC, SF-12 and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System) were evaluated. A single observer was used to measure range of motion scores. Results and Discussion: No patients were lost to follow-up. One patient was withdrawn due to dementia before three months, one patient died prior to the two-year follow-up, and one patient was revised for infection at six months, leaving 87 patients at an average follow-up of 3.37 years (range 2.91–4.44 years). There were no significant differences in any outcome measures or radiographic findings. There were no differences in KSCRS at two years (SAL – 167, AMK – 158, GenesisII – 166 ). There were no differences in WOMAC scores or SF-12 survey scores. There were no differences in knee flexion at two years (SAL – 117. °. , AMK – 115. °. , GenesisII – 118. °. ). Therefore, no differences in multiple outcome measures were seen between a cruciate retaining mobile bearing and two cruciate retaining fixed bearing total knee prostheses. Conclusion: In this prospective randomised clinical trial no differences could be seen between a mobile bearing and two fixed bearing designs at a minimum of two years follow-up. Long-term evaluation will be required to comment on differences in polyethylene wear and implant longevity

Range of motion after total knee replacement is an important outcome variable. Motion impacts the patient’s ability to perform a variety of activities of daily living. In addition, a stiff knee is also a painful knee secondary to continuous soft tissue irritation. Appropriate knowledge in terms of variables that effect range of motion as well as evaluation of the stiff knee are therefore important in the practice of total knee arthroplasty. The most important and consistent factor in determining postoperative flexion is preoperative flexion. Other factors that have been invariably associated with flexion after knee replacement include weight of the patient, age, preoperative diagnosis, and implant design. In terms of implant design, cruciate substituting designs have been reported in several studies to have better motion than cruciate retaining designs. Recent data also suggests that patients with a high visual analogue scale for pain also had poor range of motion following total knee replacement. In analysing a patient with a stiff knee it is thus first important to try and determine what the patients preoperative range of motion was. This helps in determining what the biologic capacity for range of motion after knee replacement. Evaluation of the preoperative x-ray is important in determining factors such as elevation of the joint line and matching the tibial slope especially in cruciate retaining implants. Failure to appropriately match the patient’s tibial slope leads to a tight flexion gap and a decrease in flexion. Malrotation of the components and stuffing the patello-femoral compartment with a thick patellar reconstruction can also decrease postoperative flexion. Balancing of the posterior cruciate ligament in cruciate retaining designs is obviously critical. It is difficult to tell based on physical examination whether the cruciate ligament is in fact tight as secondary contractures develop. If preoperative evaluation determines that the implants are well-positioned manipulation under anaesthesia is a viable option. In both cruciate retaining and posterior cruciate substituting designs this can be safely done up to three months after surgery. For patients who present late after total knee replacement with significant complaints of stiffness, an arthrotomy with debridement of the of the suprapatellar pouch, recreation of the medial and lateral gutters and resection of the posterior cruciate ligament can be successful. Finally implant revision is sometimes required

Bicruciate ligament retaining total knee arthroplasty preserves all of the ligaments of the knee while still addressing the ligament balance and the flexion-extension gaps. The concept of cruciate ligament preservation is not new and both Townley and Cartier designed prostheses in the late 1980s that did preserve all of the ligaments. Their results were quite acceptable for that time in knee replacement surgery but the posterior stabilised and cruciate retaining designs controlled most of the market. The surgical technique for cruciate ligament preservation was more difficult, and without clear clinical benefit, most surgeons gravitated towards the cruciate retaining and posterior stabilised designs. In the late 1990s, evaluation of the total knee arthroplasty began to assess knee kinematics in addition to pain and functional outcomes. At the same time, studies on the unicondylar knee arthroplasty demonstrated impressive scores in motion and patient satisfaction with preservation of all of the ligamentous structures of the knee. Over the past two years, new designs that preserve all of the ligaments of the knee have returned to the market. The instruments have been improved and the prostheses have been changed to respect the kinematics of the knee. Fifteen to twenty percent of all total knee replacement patients are not completely satisfied with the surgery and the authors believe that complete ligament preservation may address this complaint

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of cruciate retaining (CR) and cruciate sacrificing (CS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in a multi-center randomized clinical trial with greater than 5 year follow-up. Methods: One hundred and eighty five patients (189 knees) participated in a double-blinded randomized clinical trial. 96 cruciate retaining and 93 cruciate sacrificing total knee arthroplasties (Genesis II, Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN) were performed between 1997 and 2000. All surgical procedures were performed by twelve surgeons at twelve medical centers. The average follow-up was 5.8 (5.0–7.3) years. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society Clinical Rating, WOMAC, SF-12, Radiographic Findings) were evaluated preoperatively and at the latest follow-up. Postoperative complications were also examined. Results: There were no significant differences when comparing cruciate retaining knees to cruciate sacrificing knees in patient demographics and preoperative clinical evaluation. At the latest follow-up, clinical outcomes (CR versus CS) were as follows: Knee Society Clinical Rating (163±26 versus 165±29), knee flexion (114±11& #12539;versus 118±10& #12539; p< 0.05), WOMAC (12±7 versus 8±6, p< 0.05), and SF-12 (mental: 52±9 versus 58±4, physical: 41±11 versus 42±10). Radiographic outcomes showed there were no differences in radiolucent lines or loosening, and postoperative complication rate was also not significantly different. Conclusions: In this randomized clinical trial, both posterior cruciate preserving (CR) and sacrificing (CS) total knee replacements offer excellent clinical outcomes at five or more years follow-up, with the cruciate sacrificing implant studied demonstrating small, but significant improvements in both range of motion, WOMAC, and disease specific outcomes

Introduction. Robotics have been applied to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to improve surgical precision in component placement and joint function restoration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate prosthetic component alignment in robotic arm-assisted (RA)-TKA performed with functional alignment and intraoperative fine-tuning, aiming for symmetric medial and lateral gaps in flexion/extension. It was hypothesized that functionally aligned RA-TKA the femoral and tibial cuts would be performed in line with the preoperative joint line orientation. Methods. Between September 2018 and January 2020, 81 RA cruciate retaining (CR) and posterior stabilized (PS) TKAs were performed at a single center. Preoperative radiographs were obtained, and measures were performed according to Paley's. Preoperatively, cuts were planned based on radiographic epiphyseal anatomies and respecting ±3° boundaries from neutral coronal alignment. Intraoperatively, the tibial and femoral cuts were modified based on the individual soft tissue-guided fine-tuning, aiming for symmetric medial and lateral gaps in flexion/extension. Robotic data were recorded. Results. A total of 56 RA-TKAs performed on varus knees were taken into account. On average, the tibial component was placed at 1.9° varus (SD 0.7) and 3.3° (SD 1.0) in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. The average femoral component alignment, based on the soft tissue tensioning with spoons, resulted as follows: 0.7° varus (SD 1.7) in the coronal plane and 1.8° (SD 2.1) of external rotation relative to surgical transepicondylar axis in the transverse plane. A statistically significant linear direct relationship was demonstrated between radiographic epiphyseal femoral and tibial coronal alignment and femoral (r=0.3, p<0.05) and tibial (r=0.3, p<0.01) coronal cuts, resepctively. Conclusion. Functionally aligned RA-TKA performed in varus knees, aiming for ligaments’ preservation and balanced flexion/extension gaps, provided joint line respecting femoral and tibial cuts on the coronal plane

Introduction. Revision for instability has supplanted revision for aseptic loosening and revision for osteolysis since the advent of improved polyethylene inserts with changes in both sterilization techniques and cross-linking. Having the ability to judiciously choose a higher level of constraint may be beneficial in complex primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) scenarios which can not be balanced through traditional surgical methods. The purpose of this work was to investigate short term outcomes and survivorship in cases where a greater stabilizing insert was used with a posterior stabalizing (PS) femur to address instability in flexion or extension. Methods. Two high volume TKA centers retrospectively reviewed cases in which a greater stabilizer insert was used with a primary PS knee system. The studied insert had +/− 2 degrees of varus-valgus coronal restraint as opposed the standard with no coronal constraint. The study inserts had 7 degrees of transverse plane rotational freedom. The inserts were used when extension balance was not achieved despite the usual soft tissue releases and a thicker insert resulted in a flexion contracture statically during the procedure. This situation typically occurred in the following patient groups: valgus knees with medial collateral (MCL) stretching, iatrogenic MCL injury, varus knees with lateral ligament complex stretching, the “double-varus” knee, and patients with a previous high tibial osteotomy. Intra-operatively patients were taken through a range of motion and trial implants were then placed. A cruciate retaining trial insert was then used to assess stability so that a true assessment could be made of ligament balance. Bone cuts were checked before ligament release. The usual releases were then performed to achieve balance including subperiosteal releases medially and laterally and pie-crusting when indicated. Repeat trial reductions were then performed once the final implants were cemented in place again using the cruciate retaining insert. If the soft tissue releases did not achieve balance and a thicker insert resulted in a flexion contracture then the greater stabilizer insert was selected over the PS insert. Knee Society Score and plain radiographs were collected at pre-op, 2 year and 5 year follow-up. Results. One hundred seventy two cases with 2 year minimum follow-up and 41 cases with 5 year minimum follow up were assessed. All patients had good to excellent Knee Society Scores with good range of motion and pain relief. There were no aseptic revisions of the TKA's over this period. Specifically, there were no revisions for loosening, osteolysis, instability, or post breakage. Conclusions. A more stabilized tibial post insert which provides valgus-varus constraint but permits rotational freedom may provide needed stability in select primary situations without predisposing to early post failure or implant loosening or lysis

Introduction. Femoral periprosthetic fractures above TKA are commonly treated with retrograde intramedullary nailing (IMN). This study determined if TKA design and liner type affect the minimum knee flexion required for retrograde nailing through a TKA. Methods. Twelve cadaveric specimens were prepared for six single radius (SR) TKAs and six asymmetric medial pivot (MP) TKAs. Trials with 9mm polyethylene liners were tested with cruciate retaining (CR), cruciate substituting (CS) and posterior stabilizing (PS) types. The knee was extended to identify the minimum knee flexion required to allow safe passage of the opening reamer while maintaining an optimal fluoroscopic starting point for retrograde nailing. Furthermore, the angle of axis deviation between the reamer and the femoral shaft was calculated from fluoroscopic images. Results. In all specimens, the reamer entry point was posterior to Blumensaat's line. In the SR TKA, the average flexion required was 70, 71 and 82 degrees for CR, CS and PS respectively. The required flexion in PS was significantly greater than the other designs (p=0.03). In the MP TKA, the average flexion required was 74, 84 and 123 degrees for CR, CS and PS respectively. The required flexion was significantly greater in CS and PS designs (p<0.0001). Femoral component size did not affect the minimum flexion required. Furthermore, the entry reamer required 9.2 (SR) and 12.5 (MP) degrees of posterior axis deviation from the femur. Conclusions. Our study illustrates four novel factors to consider when performing retrograde nailing through TKA. First, significant knee flexion is required to obtain an ideal radiographic starting point when retaining the liner. Second, PS implants require more flexion with both TKA designs. Third, femoral component size does not affect the flexion required. Fourth, there is a consistent posterior axis deviation of the entry reamer from the femoral shaft, explaining the commonly created extension deformity

Background. While posterior cruciate retaining (PCR) implants are a more common total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design, newer bi-cruciate retaining (BCR) TKAs are now being considered as an option for many patients, especially those that are younger. While PCR TKAs remove the ACL, the BCR TKA designs keep both cruciate ligaments intact, as it is believed that the resection of the ACL greatly affects the overall kinematic patterns of TKA designs. Various fluoroscopic studies have focused on determination of kinematics but haven't defined differentiators that affect motion patterns. This research study assesses the importance of the cruciate ligaments and femoral geometry for Bi-Cruciate Retaining (BCR) and Posterior Cruciate Retaining (PCR) TKAs having the same femoral component, compared to the normal knee. Methods. The in vivo 3D kinematics were determined for 40 subjects having a PCR TKA, 10 having a BCR TKA, and 10 having a normal knee, in a retrospective study. All TKA subjects had the same femoral component. All subjects performed a deep knee bend under fluoroscopic surveillance. The kinematics were determined during early flexion (ACL dominant), mid flexion (ACL/PCL transition) and deep flexion (PCL dominant). Results. During the first 30 degrees of flexion, the ACL played an important role, as subjects having a BCR TKA experienced kinematic patterns more similar to the normal knee. During mid flexion, both TKAs experienced random kinematic patterns, which could be due to the ACL and PCL being less active or resected in PCR TKA. In deeper flexion, both TKAs experienced kinematic patterns similar to the normal knee, thus supporting the assumption that the PCL played a dominant role [Fig. 1, Fig. 2]. All three groups generally experienced progressive axial rotation throughout flexion [Fig. 3]. On average, subjects having a PCR TKA experienced 112.3° of flexion, which was greater than the BCR subjects. Conclusions. Both the BCR TKA and normal groups experienced similar kinematic patterns, but the femoral geometrical differences from the anatomical condition may have influenced decreased motion compared to the normal knee. Both TKAs experienced similar kinematic patterns in deeper flexion, with the PCR TKA experiencing excellent weight-bearing flexion. Results from this study suggest that the cruciate ligaments can play a role in kinematics, but femoral geometry working with the ligaments may be an option to consider

Introduction. A bicruciate retaining (BCR) TKA is thought to maintain a closer resemblance to the native knee kinematics compared to a posterior cruciate retaining (CR) TKA. With BCR TKAs retainment of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) facilitates proprioception and balance which is thought to lead to more natural knee kinematics and increased functional outcome. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the kinematics of a BCR and CR TKA during functional tests. Materials and Methods. In this patient-blinded randomized controlled trial, a total of 40 patients with knee osteoarthritis were included, 18 of them received a BCR TKA (Vanguard XP, Zimmer-Biomet) and 22 received a CR TKA (Vanguard CR, Zimmer-Biomet). Fluoroscopic analysis was done 1 year post-operatively. The main outcome was posterior femoral rollback (i.e. translation of the femorotibial contact point (CP)) of the BCR and CR TKA during a step-up test. Secondary, the kinematics during a lunge test were quantified as anterior-posterior (AP) translation of the femorotibial CP. Independent student t-tests (or non-parametric equivalent) were used to analyze the effect of BCR versus CR TKA on these measures, to correct for the multiple testing problem post-hoc Bonferroni-Holm corrections were applied. Results. The mean AP CP for the BCR implant was not significantly different from the CR implant in the medial compartment (Figure 1, left). However, laterally the BCR implant shows a more posterior CP during late extension i.e. from 30° flexion to 0° extension (Figure 1, right). Figure 2 shows the AP CP during the final extension phase (30° flexion to 0° extension) of the step-up task for both implants on the tibia plateau. While the CR TKA remains mostly stable throughout this phase, the BCR TKA shows tibial internal rotation from 30° to 10° and tibial external rotation in the final extension phase: a kinematic pattern comparable to the natural knee's screw home mechanism. The lateral AP CP of the BCR TKA is more posterior compared to the CR TKA during the whole lunge task (Figure 3, right) the medial CP is more anterior in the 0–30° flexion (Figure 3, left). The main differences between the implants during the lunge task are observable in the early flexion phase, which is in line with ACL function. Conclusion. These preliminary results suggest that the kinematics of the BCR implant reproduces the natural screw-home mechanism in early flexion/late extension. The difference between the BCR and CR implants is mostly visible in the flexion phase in which the ACL is effective, which is in congruency with the absence of the ACL in CR TKAs. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. Special high-flexion prosthetic designs show a small increase in postoperative flexion compared to standard designs and some papers show increased anterior knee pain with these prosthesis. However, no randomised controlled trails have been published which investigate difference in postoperative complaints of anterior knee pain. To assess difference in passive and active postoperative flexion and anterior knee pain we performed a randomized clinical trial including the two extremes of knee arthroplasty designs, being a high flex posterior stabilized rotating platform prosthesis versus a traditional cruciate retaining fixed bearing prosthesis. We hypothesised that the HF-PS design would allow more flexion, due to increased femoral rollback with less anterior knee pain than the CR design. We specifically assessed the following hypotheses:. Patients have increased flexion after HF-PS TKA compared to CR TKA, both passive and active. Patients show an increased femoral rollback in the HF-PS TKA as compared to the CR TKA. Patients receiving a HF-PS TKA design report reduced anterior knee pain relative to those receiving the CR TKA. Methods. In total 47 patients were randomly allocated to a standard cruciate retaining fixed bearing design (CR) in 23 patients and to a high-flexion posterior stabilized mobile bearing design (HF-PS) in 24 patients. Preoperative and one year postoperative we investigated active and passive maximal flexion. Furthermore, we used the VAS pain score at rest and during exercise and the Feller score to investigate anterior knee pain. A lateral roentgen photograph was used to measure femoral rollback during maximal flexion. Results. The HF-PS did show a significantly higher passive postoperative flexion; 120.8° (SD 10.3°) vs. 112.0° (SD 9.5°) for the CR group (p=0.004). The active postoperative flexion, VAS-pain score and Feller score did not show significant differences between both groups. Sub analysis with the HF-PS group showed a higher VAS-pain for the patients achieving ≥130° of flexion; 30.5 (SD 32.2) vs. 12.2 (SD 12.5) (p=0.16). The rollback was significantly lower in the CR group compared to the HF-PS group; 4.4 (SD 3.0) vs. 8.4 (SD 2.1). Conclusion. The present study showed a significant higher passive flexion in the Posterior Stabilised-High Flexion mobile bearing compared to a Cruciate Retaining fixed bearing prosthesis. However, this difference disappeared when comparing active flexion. The difference in passive flexion was probably related to a significantly lower rollback causing impingement in the CR prosthesis. No difference in anterior knee pain was found between both groups. However, a suggestion is raised that achieving high-flexion might lead to more patellofemoral complaints/anterior knee pain

Background. In recent years, the use of modern cementless implants in total knee arthroplasty has been increasing in popularity. These implants take advantage of new technologies such as additive manufacturing and potentially provide a promising alternative to cemented implant designs. The purpose of this study was to compare implant migration and tibiofemoral contact kinematics of a cementless primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implanted using either a gap balancing (GB) or measured resection (MR) surgical technique. Methods. Thirty-nine patients undergoing unilateral TKA were recruited and assigned based on surgeon referral to an arthroplasty surgeon who utilizes either a GB (n = 19) or a MR (n = 20) surgical technique. All patients received an identical fixed-bearing, cruciate-retaining beaded peri-apatite coated cementless femoral component and a pegged highly porous cementless tibial baseplate with a condylar stabilizing tibial insert. Patients underwent a baseline radiostereometric analysis (RSA) exam at two weeks post-operation, with follow-up visits at six weeks, three months, six months, and one year post-operation. Migration including maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the femoral and tibial components was calculated over time. At the one year visit patients also underwent a kinematic exam using the RSA system. Results. Mean MTPM of the tibial component at one year post-operation was not different (mean difference = 0.09 mm, p = 0.980) between the GB group (0.85 ± 0.37 mm) and the MR group (0.94 ± 0.41 mm). Femoral component MTPM at one year post-operation was also not different (mean difference = 0.27 mm, p = 0.463) between the GB group (0.62 ± 0.34 mm) and the MR group (0.89 ± 0.44 mm). Both groups displayed a lateral pivot pattern with similar frequencies of condylar separation. Conclusion. There was no difference in implant migration and kinematics of a single-radius, cruciate retaining cementless TKA performed using a GB or MR surgical technique. The magnitude of migration suggests there is no risk of early loosening. The results provide support for the use of a cementless TKA as a viable alternative to cemented fixation

Summary. We report a large study of 331 patients at two years post operation who were prospectively randomised to receive either a rotating platform or a fixed bearing knee replacement of an otherwise identical design. Introduction. The mobile bearing total knee replacement was developed as there are theoretical benefits in that it may allow a better range of motion, better patella tracking and lower wear rates. This study was designed to see if these potential advantages are borne out in practice when using a cruciate retaining design. Methods. 331 patients undergoing TKR surgery were randomised to receive either a fixed bearing (170 patients) or a mobile bearing (161 patients). The femoral implant design was identical in the two groups. The tibial polyethylene bearing was either fixed in the metallic tibial tray (FB) or of rotating platform design (RP). All patients were assessed pre-operatively and at two years post-operatively using standard tools (Oxford, AKSS, Patellar Score) by independent nurse specialists. Results. The groups who received the FB and the RP implants have been assessed and their pre-operative to two year outcomes analysed with regard to the improvement in the range of motion (9.1 v. 10.2 degrees), Oxford Knee Score (-19.2 v. -17.6) and American Knee Society Knee and Function scores (51.3 v. 49.5 and 25.3 v. 23.6) at two years follow up. Conclusion. This large study shows that there is no statistical difference between a FB and a RP cruciate retaining TKR at two years post operation