Joint registries report that 25–40% of UKR revisions are performed for pain. Proximal tibial strain and microdamage are possible causes of this “unexplained” pain. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of UKR implant design and material on proximal tibial cortical strain and cancellous microdamage. Composite Sawbone tibias were implanted with cemented UKR components: 5 fixed bearing all-polyethylene (FB-AP), 5 fixed bearing metal backed (FB-MB), and 5 mobile bearing metal backed implants (MB-MB). Five intact tibias were used as controls. Tibias were loaded in 500N increments to 2500N. Cortical surface strain was measured using digital image correlation (DIC). Cancellous microdamage was measured using acoustic emission (AE), a technique which detects elastic waves produced by the rapid release of energy during microdamage events. DIC showed significant differences in anteromedial cortical strain between implants at 1500N and 2500N in the proximal 10mm only (p<0.001) with strain shielding in metal backed implants. AE showed significant differences in cancellous microdamage (AE hits), between implants at all loads (p=0.001). FB-AP implants displayed significantly more hits at all loads than both controls and metal backed implants (p<0.001). FB-AP implants also differed significantly by displaying AE hits on unloading (p=0.01), reflecting a lack of implant stiffness. Compared to controls, the FB-AP implant displayed 15x the total AE hits, the FB-MB 6x and the MB-MB 2.7x. All-polyethylene medial UKR implants are associated with greater cancellous bone microdamage than metal backed implants even at low loads

25–40% of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) revisions are performed for unexplained pain possibly secondary to elevated proximal tibial bone strain. This study investigates the effect of tibial component metal backing and polyethylene thickness on cancellous bone strain in a finite element model (FEM) of a cemented fixed bearing medial UKR, validated using previously published acoustic emission data (AE). FEMs of composite tibiae implanted with an all-polyethylene tibial component (AP) and a metal backed one (MB) were created. Polyethylene of thickness 6–10mm in 2mm increments was loaded to a medial load of 2500N. The volume of cancellous bone exposed to <−3000 (pathological overloading) and <−7000 (failure limit) minimum principal (compressive) microstrain (µ∊) and >3000 and >7000 maximum principal (tensile) microstrain was measured. Linear regression analysis showed good correlation between measured AE hits and volume of cancellous bone elements with compressive strain <−3000µ∊: correlation coefficients (R= 0.947, R2 = 0.847), standard error of the estimate (12.6 AE hits) and percentage error (12.5%) (p<0.001). AP implants displayed greater cancellous bone strains than MB implants for all strain variables at all loads. Patterns of strain differed between implants: MB concentrations at the lateral edge; AP concentrations at the keel, peg and at the region of load application. AP implants had 2.2 (10mm) to 3.2 (6mm) times the volume of cancellous bone compressively strained <−7000µ∊ than the MB implants. Altering MB polyethylene insert thickness had no effect. We advocate using caution with all-polyethylene UKR implants especially in large or active patients where loads are higher

Two knee arthroplasty implants with very different design principles were previously available in our region. Kinemax is PCL retaining with a fixed bearing and cemented components. LCS is PCL sacrificing, fully uncemented and incorporates a rotating bearing. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of these two radically different knee designs. Between 1994 and 2004, 300 consecutive patients were recruited and underwent a knee replacement performed by the senior author. Each patient was randomised via sealed envelopes to receive either LCS or Kinemax implants. All patients were followed up by an audit nurse and patient satisfaction and Knee Society Scores (KSSs) were recorded. By 2012, 135 patients had complete data at a minimum of 10-years of follow-up. The remaining 165 had either died before 10-year review or had not reached the 10-year mark. No patient was lost to follow-up. There were 69 patients in the Kinemax group and 68 in the LCS group. The pre-operative demographics were not significantly different between the two groups. At 10-years of follow-up, each implant design demonstrated significant improvements in the KSS (p=0.001 kinemax, p=0.001 LCS) over pre-operative values. No significant difference could be identified between the two designs at 10 years. There were only two revisions in the whole study population and both were for kinemax implants at less than five years post-operatively. In conclusion, there was no statistically significant difference in outcome between the two radically different knee designs at ten years with both designs performing equally well