Different femorotibial contact points between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs do not show clinical impact.

PURPOSE: In anteroposterior (AP)-gliding mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the femoral component can theoretically slide forward resulting in a more anterior contact point, causing pain due to impingement. A lower lever arm of the extensor apparatus can also attribute to higher patella pressures and pain. The goal of this study was to determine the contact point in a cohort of mobile- and fixed-bearing TKAs, to determine whether the contact point lies more anteriorly in mobile-bearing TKA and to confirm whether this results in anterior knee pain. METHODS: We used 38 fixed-bearing TKA and 40 mobile-bearing TKA from a randomized trial with straight lateral knee X-rays and measured the contact point. The functional outcome was measured by Knee Society Score at 12 months postoperatively. Pain scores were analysed using a VAS score (0-100 mm) in all patients at rest and when moving. Difficulty at rising up out of a chair was also assessed using a VAS score. RESULTS: The contact point in mobile-bearing TKA was situated at 59.5 % of the AP distance of the tibia and in the fixed-bearing TKA group at 66.1 % (P< 0.05). Patients with mobile- and fixed-bearing TKAs had similar knee scores, pain scores and difficulty in chair rise. No significant correlation was found between contact point and knee pain. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis of a more anterior contact point in the mobile-bearing cohort was confirmed but no correlation with functional and pain scores in this cohort could be found. The tibiofemoral contact point could not be correlated with a different clinical outcome and higher incidence of anterior knee pain. This study further adds to the knowledge on possible differences between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses. Next to that, bad outcomes could not be explained by CP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, Level IV.

The self-aligning knee prosthesis: clinical and radiological outcome and survival analysis of a cruciate retaining meniscal bearing knee at 10-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: Previously, the clinical and radiological results of the self-aligning cruciate retaining total knee prosthesis at 5-years follow-up were described. The 10-year follow-up is now reported to determine the clinical and radiological results and the survival of the prosthesis. METHODS: A 10-year follow-up was performed in this prospectively followed cohort of 246 (232 patients) self-aligning, cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasties performed between 1995 and 1998. Because patients had died and others suffered from comorbidities making them unable to attend a follow-up consultation, data could be obtained for 105 prostheses. Clinical results were evaluated by the Knee Society Score, and radiological follow-up was performed on standard AP and lateral X-rays. All radiographs were evaluated for the presence of radiolucencies, osteolysis and wear. RESULTS: At the 10-year follow-up, there were no new cases of revision so that the cumulative survival rate at 10 years remains 95%. The 10-year follow-up shows good clinical results with an average Knee Society Score of 154 (SD 35.7) and an average range of motion of 109° (SD 13.7). After excluding 25 prostheses for comorbidities, the mean 10-year KSS score increased from 154 to 163 (SD 26.2). On the other hand, for the ROM, the exclusion of the 25 prostheses had no influence on the mean ROM value of 109°. At the 10-year follow-up, none of the 100 available radiographs showed any radiolucencies >2 mm on any component. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of the mobile bearing, cruciate retaining, SAL-II total knee arthroplasty shows excellent clinical and radiological results without bearing dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective cohort, Level IV.