Introduction

Better functional outcomes, lower pain and better stability have been reported with knee designs which restore physiological knee kinematics. Also the ability of the TKA design to properly restore the physiological femoral rollback during knee flexion, has shown to be correlated with better restoration of the flexor/extensor mechanism, which is fundamental to the function of the human knee. The purpose of the study is to compare the kinematics of three different TKA designs, by evaluating knee motion during Activities of Daily Living. The second goal is to see if there is a correlation between the TKA kinematics and the patient reported outcomes.

Numerous papers present in-vivo knee kinematics data following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from fluoroscopic testing. Comparing data is challenging given the large number of factors that potentially affect the reported kinematics. This paper aims at understanding the effect of following three different factors: implant geometry, performed activity and analysis method. A total of 30 patients who underwent TKA were included in this study. This group was subdivided in three equal groups: each group receiving a different type of posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis. During single-plane fluoroscopic analysis, each patient performed three activities: open chain flexion extension, closed chain squatting and chair-rising. The 2D fluoroscopic data were subsequently converted to 3D implant positions and used to evaluate the tibiofemoral contact points and landmark-based kinematic parameters. Significantly different anteroposterior translations and internal-external rotations were observed between the considered implants. In the lateral compartment, these differences only appeared after post-cam engagement. Comparing the activities, a significant more posterior position was observed for both the medial and lateral compartment in the closed chain activities during mid-flexion. A strong and significant correlation was found between the contact-points and landmarks-based analyses method. However, large individual variations were also observed, yielding a difference of up to 25% in anteroposterior position between both methods. In conclusion, all three evaluated factors significantly affect the obtained tibiofemoral kinematics. The individual implant design significantly affects the anteroposterior tibiofemoral position, internal-external rotation and timing of post-cam engagement. Both kinematics and post-cam engagement additionally depend on the activity investigated, with a more posterior position and associated higher patella lever arm for the closed chain activities. Attention should also be paid to the considered analysis method and associated kinematics definition: analyzing the tibiofemoral contact points potentially yields significantly different results compared to a landmark-based approach