We identified 148 patients who had undergone a revision total knee replacement using a single implant system between 1990 and 2000. Of these 18 patients had died, six had developed a peri-prosthetic fracture and ten had incomplete records or radiographs. This left 114 with prospectively-collected radiographs and Bristol knee scores available for study. The height of the joint line before and after revision total knee replacement was measured and classified as either restored to within 5 mm of the pre-operative height or elevated if it was positioned more than 5 mm above the pre-operative height. The joint line was elevated in 41 knees (36%) and restored in 73 (64%).

Revision surgery significantly improved the mean Bristol knee score from 41.1 (sd 15.9) pre-operatively to 80.5 (sd 15) post-operatively (p < 0.001). At one year post-operatively both the total Bristol knee score and its functional component were significantly better in the restored group than in the elevated group (p < 0.01). Overall, revision from a unicondylar knee replacement required less use of bone graft, fewer component augments, restored the joint line more often and gave a significantly better total Bristol knee score (p < 0.02) and functional score (p < 0.01) than revision from total knee replacement.

Our findings show that restoration of the joint line at revision total knee replacement gives a significantly better result than leaving it unrestored by more than 5 mm. We recommend the greater use of distal femoral augments to help to achieve this goal.

The management of patients with a painful total knee replacement requires careful assessment and a stepwise approach in order to diagnose the underlying pathology accurately. The management should include a multidisciplinary approach to the patient’s pain as well as addressing the underlying aetiology. Pain should be treated with appropriate analgesia, according to the analgesic ladder of the World Health Organisation. Special measures should be taken to identify and to treat any neuropathic pain. There are a number of intrinsic and extrinsic causes of a painful knee replacement which should be identified and treated early. Patients with unexplained pain and without any recognised pathology should be treated conservatively since they may improve over a period of time and rarely do so after a revision operation.

Mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements have been developed as an alternative to the standard fixed- and mobile-bearing designs. However, little is known about the in vivo kinematics of this new group of implants. We investigated 31 patients who had undergone a total knee replacement with a similar prosthetic design but with three different options: fixed-bearing posterior cruciate ligament-retaining, fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised. To do this we used a three-dimensional to two-dimensional model registration technique. Both the fixed- and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised configurations used the same femoral component. We found that fixed-bearing posterior stabilised and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrated similar kinematic patterns, with consistent femoral roll-back during flexion. Mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrated greater and more natural internal rotation of the tibia during flexion than fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. Such rotation occurred at the interface between the insert and tibial tray for mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. However, for fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs, rotation occurred at the proximal surface of the bearing. Posterior cruciate ligament-retaining knee replacements demonstrated paradoxical sliding forward of the femur.

We conclude that mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements reproduce internal rotation of the tibia more closely during flexion than fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. Furthermore, mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrate a unidirectional movement which occurs at the upper and lower sides of the mobile insert. The femur moves in an anteroposterior direction on the upper surface of the insert, whereas the movement at the lower surface is pure rotation. Such unidirectional movement may lead to less wear when compared with the multidirectional movement seen in fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements, and should be associated with more evenly applied cam-post stresses.

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.