Components from 73 failed knee replacements (TKRs) consisting of rotating-platform, mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing implants were examined to assess the patterns of wear. The patterns were divided into low-grade (burnishing, abrasion and cold flow) and high-grade (scratching, pitting/metal embedding and delamination) to assess the severity of the wear of polyethylene.

The rotating-platform group had a higher incidence of low-grade wear on the upper surface compared with the fixed-bearing group. By contrast, high-grade wear comprising scratching, pitting and third-body embedding was seen on the lower surface. Linear regression analysis showed a significant correlation of the wear scores between the upper and lower surfaces of the tibial insert (R² = 0.29, p = 0.04) for the rotating-platform group, but no significant correlation was found for the fixed-bearing counterpart.

This suggests that high-grade wear patterns on the upper surface are reduced with the rotating-platform design. However, the incidence of burnishing, pitting/third-body embedding and scratching wear patterns on the lower surface was higher compared with that in the fixed-bearing knee.

One of the most controversial issues in total knee replacement is whether or not to resurface the patella. In order to determine the effects of different designs of femoral component on the conformity of the patellofemoral joint, five different knee prostheses were investigated. These were Low Contact Stress, the Miller-Galante II, the NexGen, the Porous-Coated Anatomic, and the Total Condylar prostheses. Three-dimensional models of the prostheses and a native patella were developed and assessed by computer. The conformity of the curvature of the five different prosthetic femoral components to their corresponding patellar implants and to the native patella at different angles of flexion was assessed by measuring the angles of intersection of tangential lines.

The Total Condylar prosthesis had the lowest conformity with the native patella (mean 8.58°; 0.14° to 29.9°) and with its own patellar component (mean 11.36°; 0.55° to 39.19°). In the other four prostheses, the conformity was better (mean 2.25°; 0.02° to 10.52°) when articulated with the corresponding patellar component. The Porous-Coated Anatomic femoral component showed better conformity (mean 6.51°; 0.07° to 9.89°) than the Miller-Galante II prosthesis (mean 11.20°; 5.80° to 16.72°) when tested with the native patella. Although the Nexgen prosthesis had less conformity with the native patella at a low angle of flexion, this improved at mid (mean 3.57°; 1.40° to 4.56°) or high angles of flexion (mean 4.54°; 0.91° to 9.39°), respectively. The Low Contact Stress femoral component had the best conformity with the native patella (mean 2.39°; 0.04° to 4.56°). There was no significant difference (p > 0.208) between the conformity when tested with the native patella or its own patellar component at any angle of flexion.

The geometry of the anterior flange of a femoral component affects the conformity of the patellofemoral joint when articulating with the native patella. A more anatomical design of femoral component is preferable if the surgeon decides not to resurface the patella at the time of operation.