Balancing in total knee replacement is generally carried out using the feel and experience of the surgeon, using spacer blocks or distractors. However, such a method is not generally applicable to all surgeons and nor does it provide quantitative data of the balancing itself. One approach is the use of instrumented distractors, which have been used to monitor soft tissue releases or indicate a flexion cut for equal lateral and medial forces. More recently an instrumented tibial trial has been introduced which measures and displays the magnitude and location of the loads on the lateral and medial plateaus, during various manoeuvres carried out at surgery. The data set is then used by the surgeon to determine options, whether soft tissue releases or bone cut adjustments, to achieve lateral-medial equality.

The testing method consisted of mounting the femoral component rigidly in a fixture on the vertical arm of an MTS machine. The tibial component was fixed on to a platform which allowed varus-valgus correction, and where the component could be displaced or rotated in a horizontal plane. Two of each size times 4 sizes of production components were tested. Compressive forces from 0–400N in steps of 50N were applied and the readings taken. There were strong correlations between applied and measured forces with mean Pearson's Correlation Coefficient of 0.958.

The special tests under different conditions did not have any effect on the output values. The output data proved to be repeatable under Central Loading with a maximum standard deviation of ± 15.36N at the highest applied force of 400N. “Low battery” did not adversely affect the data. Applying the load steadily to maximum versus load-unload-zero tests produced similar results. Lubrication versus no lubrication tests produced no changes to the results. There was no cross talk of the electronics within the device when loaded on one condyle. For both central and anterior-posterior loading, the contact points were centered medial-lateral on the GUI display, and tracked contact point translation appropriately.

Anterior-posterior loading did create output load variance at the extremes. However, it enabled the validation of the relationship of the femur on the trial surface. In addition, malrotation would be indicated by the femur riding up on the anterior or posterior tibial edges, important for soft tissue tension in all flexion angles.

In conclusion, the sensors provided data which was accurate to well within a practical range for surgical conditions. In our separate experiments on 10 cadaveric leg specimens, even the same test under controlled conditions could produce variations of up to ± 30N. Hence the sensor outputs indicated whether or not the knee was balanced to that level of tolerance, while the contact point data would indicate contacts too close to the anterior or posterior of the tibial surface.