The material and design of knee components can have a considerable effect on the contact characteristics of the tibial post. This study aimed to analyze the stress distribution on the tibial post when using different grades of polyethylene for the tibial inserts. In addition, the contact properties of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing inserts were evaluated. Three different grades of polyethylene were compared in this study; conventional ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE), and vitamin E-stabilized polyethylene (VEPE). In addition, tibial baseplates with a fixed-bearing and a mobile-bearing insert were evaluated to understand differences in the contact properties. The inserts were implanted in neutral alignment and with a 10° internal malrotation. The contact stress, von Mises stress, and equivalent plastic strain (PEEQ) on the tibial posts were extracted for comparison.Aims
Methods
While total knee arthroplasty has demonstrated clinical success, final bone cut and final component alignment can be critical for achieving a desired overall limb alignment. This cadaver study investigated whether robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) allows for accurate bone cuts and component position to plan compared to manual technique. Six cadaveric specimens (12 knees) were prepared by an experienced user of manual total knee arthroplasty (MTKA), who was inexperienced in RATKA. For each cadaveric pair, a RATKA was prepared on the right leg and a MTKA was prepared on the left leg. Final bone cuts and final component position to plan were measured relative to fiducials, and mean and standard deviations were compared. Measurements of final bone cut error for each cut show that RATKA had greater accuracy and precision to plan for femoral anterior internal/external (0.8±0.5° vs. 2.7±1.9°) and flexion/extension* (0.5±0.4° vs. 4.3±2.3°), anterior chamfer varus/valgus* (0.5±0.1° vs. 4.1±2.2°) and flexion/extension (0.3±0.2° vs. 1.9±1.0°), distal varus/valgus (0.5±0.3° vs. 2.5±1.6°) and flexion/extension (0.8±0.5° vs. 1.1±1.1°), posterior chamfer varus/valgus* (1.3±0.4° vs. 2.8±2.0°) and flexion/extension (0.8±0.5° vs. 1.4±1.6°), posterior internal/external* (1.1±0.6° vs. 2.8±1.6°) and flexion/extension (0.7±0.6° vs. 3.7±4.0°), and tibial varus/valgus* (0.6±0.3° vs. 1.3±0.7°) rotations, compared to MTKA, respectively, (where * indicates a significant difference between the two operative methods based on 2- Variances testing, with α at 0.05). Measurements of final component position error show that RATKA had greater accuracy and precision to plan for femoral varus/valgus* (0.6±0.3° vs. 3.0±1.4°), flexion/extension* (0.6±0.5° vs. 3.0±2.1°), internal/external (0.8±0.5° vs. 2.6±1.6°), and tibial varus/valgus (0.7±0.4° vs. 1.1±0.8°) than the MTKA control, respectively. In general, RATKA demonstrated greater accuracy and precision of bone cuts and component placement to plan, compared to MTKA in this cadaveric study. For further confirmation, RATKA accuracy of component placement should be investigated in a clinical setting.
