Tibial insert design significantly alters knee kinematics using a single cruciate-retaining total knee implant

Abstract

AimsPatient dissatisfaction is not uncommon following primary total knee arthroplasty. One proposed method to alleviate this is by improving knee kinematics. Therefore, we aimed to answer the following research question: are there significant differences in knee kinematics based on the design of the tibial insert (cruciate-retaining (CR), ultra-congruent (UC), or medial congruent (MC))?MethodsOverall, 15 cadaveric knee joints were examined with a CR implant with three different tibial inserts (CR, UC, and MC) using an established knee joint simulator. The effects on coronal alignment, medial and lateral femoral roll back, femorotibial rotation, bony rotations (femur, tibia, and patella), and patellofemoral length ratios were determined.ResultsNo statistically significant differences were found regarding coronal alignment (p = 0.087 to p = 0.832). The medial congruent insert demonstrated restricted femoral roll back (mean medial 37.57 mm; lateral 36.34 mm), while the CR insert demonstrated the greatest roll back (medial 42.21 mm; lateral 37.88 mm; p < 0.001, respectively). Femorotibial rotation was greatest with the CR insert with 2.45° (SD 4.75°), then the UC insert with 1.31° (SD 4.15°; p < 0.001), and lowest with the medial congruent insert with 0.8° (SD 4.24°; p < 0.001). The most pronounced patella shift, but lowest patellar rotation, was noted with the CR insert.ConclusionThe MC insert demonstrated the highest level of constraint of these inserts. Femoral roll back, femorotibial rotation, and single bony rotations were lowest with the MC insert. The patella showed less shifting with the MC insert, but there was significantly increased rotation. While the medial congruent insert was found to have highest constraint, it remains uncertain if this implant recreates native knee kinematics or if this will result in improved patient satisfaction.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):592–600.