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.

The biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint can become disturbed during total knee replacement by alterations induced by the position and shape of the different prosthetic components. The role of the patella and femoral trochlea has been well studied. We have examined the effect of anterior or posterior positioning of the tibial component on the mechanisms of patellofemoral contact in total knee replacement. The hypothesis was that placing the tibial component more posteriorly would reduce patellofemoral contact stress while providing a more efficient lever arm during extension of the knee.

We studied five different positions of the tibial component using a six degrees of freedom dynamic knee simulator system based on the Oxford rig, while simulating an active knee squat under physiological loading conditions. The patellofemoral contact force decreased at a mean of 2.2% for every millimetre of posterior translation of the tibial component. Anterior positions of the tibial component were associated with elevation of the patellofemoral joint pressure, which was particularly marked in flexion > 90°.

From our results we believe that more posterior positioning of the tibial component in total knee replacement would be beneficial to the patellofemoral joint.