No differences in in vivo kinematics between six different types of knee prostheses

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare a broad range of total knee prostheses with different design parameters to determine whether in vivo kinematics was consistently related to design. The hypothesis was that there are no clear recognizable differences in in vivo kinematics between different design parameters or prostheses. METHODS: At two sites, data were collected by a single observer on 52 knees (49 subjects with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis). Six different total knee prostheses were used: multi-radius, single-radius, fixed-bearing, mobile-bearing, posterior-stabilized, cruciate retaining and cruciate sacrificing. Knee kinematics was recorded using fluoroscopy as the patients performed a step-up motion. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of prosthetic design on all outcome parameters; however, post hoc tests showed that the NexGen group was responsible for 80% of the significant values. The range of knee flexion was much smaller in this group, resulting in smaller anterior-posterior translations and rotations. CONCLUSION: Despite kinematics being generally consistent with the kinematics intended by their design, there were no clear recognizable differences in in vivo kinematics between different design parameters or prostheses. Hence, the differences in design parameters or prostheses are not distinct enough to have an effect on clinical outcome of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level III.Optimising joint reconstruction management in arthritis and bone tumour patient