Posterior stability in fixed-bearing versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a radiological comparison of two implants.
BACKGROUND
Posterior tibial translation in total knee replacement (TKR) could be one major factor for PE wear, delamination and loosening of the tibial component due to increased shear forces and component-to-bone interface stress. The aim of this study was to assess the posterior stability of two different designs of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) substituting TKR.


METHODS
In this non-randomised consecutive study 43 patients underwent TKR for primary osteoarthritis. Twenty-six patients in group FB received a deep-dished fixed-bearing Duracon TKR (Howmedica, Rutherford, NJ, USA) and 17 patients in group MB a deep-dished rotating mobile-bearing Duracon TKR. In both groups the PCL was resected. All patients had pre- and postoperative kneeling stress radiographs and were clinically evaluated with the Knee Society Score. Posterior tibial translation was measured by tracing a line along the posterior tibial cortex in relationship to the posterior edge of Blumensaat's line.


RESULTS
The average follow-up was 13 months for group FB and 11 months for group MB. Both groups demonstrated a statistical significant increase of the mean posterior tibial translation on kneeling stress X-ray of 4.1 mm (group FB) (P < 0.001) and of 6.6 mm (group MB) (P < 0.001) compared to pre-operative. Group MB showed a significant higher posterior draw (P < 0.008). Clinical assessment using the Knee Society Score showed comparable short-term results.


CONCLUSIONS
The deep-dished fixed-bearing TKR as well as the deep-dished rotating mobile-bearing TKR demonstrated significant posterior tibial translation on kneeling stress X-ray. It remains to be determined what amount of joint play is optimal for clinical function and to minimise shear forces and PE wear. Moreover the amount of posterior tibial translation was significantly higher with the mobile-bearing insert, which could be directly related to the asymmetric rotational mobility of the tibial insert. A long-term follow-up is necessary to investigate whether our findings correlate with the survival-rate of these specific implants.
Siebold
R
R
Warringal Private Hospital, 1/210 Burgundy Street, Heidelberg, 3084, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. rainersiebold@hotmail.com
Louisia
S
S
Canty
J
J
Bartlett
R J
RJ
D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000503:physiopathology*; D007720:Knee Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011859:Radiography; D013314:Stress, Mechanical