The rotational alignment of the tibia is an unresolved issue in knee replacement. A poor functional outcome may be due to malrotation of the tibial component. Our aim was to find a reliable method for positioning the tibial component in knee replacement.

CT scans of 19 knees were reconstructed in three dimensions and orientated vertically. An axial plane was identified 20 mm below the tibial spines. The centre of each tibial condyle was calculated from ten points taken round the condylar cortex. The tibial tubercle centre was also generated as the centre of the circle which best fitted eight points on the outside of the tubercle in an axial plane at the level of its most prominent point.

The derived points were identified by three observers with errors of 0.6 mm to 1 mm. The medial and lateral tibial centres were constant features (radius 24 mm (sd 3), and 22 mm (sd 3), respectively). An anatomical axis was created perpendicular to the line joining these two points. The tubercle centre was found to be 20 mm (sd 7) lateral to the centre of the medial tibial condyle. Compared with this axis, an axis perpendicular to the posterior condylar axis was internally rotated by 6° (sd 3). An axis based on the tibial tubercle and the tibial spines was also internally rotated by 5° (sd 10).

Alignment of the knee when based on this anatomical axis was more reliable than either the posterior surfaces or any axis involving the tubercle which was the least reliable landmark in the region.

Abnormal sagittal kinematics after total knee replacement (TKR) can adversely affect functional outcome. Two important determinants of knee kinematics are component geometry and the presence or absence of a posterior-stabilising mechanism (cam-post). We investigated the influence of these variables by comparing the kinematics of a TKR with a polyradial femur with a single radius design, both with and without a cam-post mechanism.

We assessed 55 patients, subdivided into four groups, who had undergone a TKR one year earlier by using an established fluoroscopy protocol in order to examine their kinematics in vivo. The kinematic profile was obtained by measuring the patellar tendon angle through the functional knee flexion range (0° to 90°) and the results compared with 14 normal knees. All designs of TKR had abnormal sagittal kinematics compared with the normal knee. There was a significant (p < 0.05) difference between those of the two TKRs near to full extension. The presence of the cam-post mechanism did not influence the kinematics for either TKR design. These differences suggest that surface geometry is a stronger determinant of kinematics than the presence or absence of a cam-post mechanism for these two designs. This may be because the cam-post mechanism is ineffective.