Skip to main content
Log in

Influence of component design on in vivo tibiofemoral contact patterns during kneeling after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Modern TKR prostheses are designed to restore healthy kinematics including high flexion. Kneeling is a demanding high-flexion activity. There have been many studies of kneeling kinematics using a plethora of implant designs but no comprehensive comparisons. Visualisation of contact patterns allows for quantification and comparison of knee kinematics. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether there are any differences in the kinematics of kneeling as a function of TKR design.

Methods

A search of the published literature identified 26 articles which were assessed for methodologic quality using the MINORS instrument. Contact patterns for different implant designs were compared at 90° and maximal flexion using quality-effects meta-analysis models.

Results

Twenty-five different implants using six designs were reported. Most of the included studies had small-sample sizes, were non-consecutive, and did not have a direct comparison group. Only posterior-stabilised fixed-bearing and cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing designs had data for more than 200 participants. Meta-analyses revealed that bicruciate-stabilised fixed-bearing designs appeared to achieve more flexion and the cruciate-retaining rotating-platform design achieved the least, but both included single studies only. All designs demonstrated posterior–femoral translation and external rotation in kneeling, but posterior-stabilised designs were more posterior at maximal flexion when compared to cruciate retaining. However, the heterogeneity of the mean estimates was substantial, and therefore, firm conclusions about relative behaviour cannot be drawn.

Conclusion

The high heterogeneity may be due to a combination of variability in the kneeling activity and variations in implant geometry within each design category. There remains a need for a high-quality prospective comparative studies to directly compare designs using a common method.

Level of evidence

Systematic review and meta-analysis Level IV

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ardestani MM, Moazen M, Jin Z (2015) Contribution of geometric design parameters to knee implant performance: conflicting impact of conformity on kinematics and contact mechanics. Knee 22:217–224

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) (2019) Hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty. AOA, Adelaide

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barnes CL, Sharma A, David Blaha J, Nambu SN, Carroll ME (2011) Kneeling is safe for patients implanted with medial-pivot total knee arthroplasty designs. J Arthroplasty 26:549–554

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bull AMJ, Kessler O, Alam M, Amis AA (2008) Changes in knee kinematics reflect the articular geometry after arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2491–2499

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Coughlin KM, Incavo SJ, Doohen RR, Gamada K, Banks S, Beynnon BD (2007) Kneeling kinematics after total knee arthroplasty: anterior-posterior contact position of a standard and a high-flex tibial insert design. J Arthroplasty 22:160–165

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Delport HP, Banks SA, De SJ, Bellemans J, De Schepper J, Bellemans J (2006) A kinematic comparison of fixed-and mobile-bearing knee replacements. J Bone Jt Surg Br 88:1016–1021

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Hoff WA, Gabriel SM (1996) In vivo knee kinematics derived using an inverse perspective technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:107–117

    Google Scholar 

  8. Doi SAR, Barendregt JJ, Khan S, Thalib L, Williams GM (2015) Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials II: the quality effects model. Contemp Clin Trials 45:123–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Galvin CR, Perriman DM, Lynch JT, Pickering MR, Newman P, Smith PN, Scarvell JM (2019) Age has a minimal effect on knee kinematics: a cross-sectional 3D/2D image-registration study of kneeling. Knee 25:988–1002

    Google Scholar 

  10. Galvin CR, Perriman DM, Newman PM, Lynch JT, Smith PN, Scarvell JM (2018) Squatting, lunging and kneeling provided similar kinematic profiles in healthy knees—a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on deep knee flexion kinematics. Knee 25:514–530

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gamada K, Jayasekera N, Kashif F, Fennema P, Schmotzer H, Banks SA (2008) Does ligament balancing technique affect kinematics in rotating platform, PCL retaining knee arthroplasties? Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 16:160–166

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ginsel BL, Banks S, Verdonschot N, Hodge WA (2009) Improving maximum flexion with a posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty: a fluoroscopic study. Acta Orthop Belg 75:801–807

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hamai S, Miura H, Higaki H, Matsuda S, Shimoto T, Sasaki K, Yoshizumi M, Okazaki K, Tsukamoto N, Iwamoto Y (2008) Kinematic analysis of kneeling in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties. J Orthop Res 26:435–442

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hanson GR, Park SE, Suggs JF, Moynihan AL, Nha KW, Freiberg A, Li G (2007) In vivo kneeling biomechanics after posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 12:476–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hefzy MS, Kelly BP, Cooke TDV (1998) Kinematics of the knee joint in deep flexion: a radiographic assessment. Med Eng Phys 20:302–307

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, Welch V (eds) (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2nd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester UK

    Google Scholar 

  17. Howell SM, Hodapp EE, Kuznik K, Hull ML (2009) In vivo adduction and reverse axial rotation (external) of the tibial component can be minimized. Orthopaedics 32:319–326

    Google Scholar 

  18. Howell SM, Hodapp EE, Vernace JV, Hull ML, Meade TD (2013) Are undesirable contact kinematics minimized after kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty? An intersurgeon analysis of consecutive patients. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2281–2287

    Google Scholar 

  19. Incavo SJ, Mullins ER, Coughlin KM, Banks S, Banks A, Beynnon BD (2004) Tibiofemoral kinematic analysis of kneeling after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:906–910

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Insall JN, Lachiewicz PF, Burstein AH (1982) The posterior stabilized condylar prosthesis: a modification of the total condylar design. Two to four-year clinical experience. J Bone Jt Surg Am 64:1317–1323

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Jacobs W, Anderson P, Limbeek J, Wymenga A (2004) Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for total knee arthroplasty for post-operative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD003130

  22. Jiang C, Liu Z, Wang Y, Bian Y, Feng B, Weng X (2016) Posterior cruciate ligament retention versus posterior stabilization for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 11:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kanekasu K, Banks SA, Honjo S, Nakata O, Kato H (2004) Fluoroscopic analysis of knee arthroplasty kinematics during deep flexion kneeling. J Arthroplasty 19:998–1003

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuroyanagi Y, Mu S, Hamai S, Robb WJ, Banks SA (2012) In vivo knee kinematics during stair and deep flexion activities in patients with bicruciate substituting total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:122–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mahoney OM, Kinsey TL, Banks AZ, Banks SA (2009) Rotational kinematics of a modern fixed-bearing posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:641–645

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. McClelland JA, Feller JA, Menz HB, Webster KE (2017) Patients with total knee arthroplasty do not use all of their available range of knee flexion during functional activities. Clin Biomech 43:74–78

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mikashima Y, Tomatsu T, Horikoshi M, Nakatani T, Saito S, Momohara S, Banks SA (2010) In vivo deep-flexion kinematics in patients with posterior-cruciate retaining and anterior-cruciate substituting total knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech 25:83–87

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Moonot P, Mu S, Railton GT, Field RE, Banks SA (2009) Tibiofemoral kinematic analysis of knee flexion for a medial pivot knee. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 17(8):927–934

    Google Scholar 

  29. Moro-oka T, Muenchinger M, Canciani J-P, Banks S (2007) Comparing in vivo kinematics of anterior cruciate-retaining and posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 15:93–99

    Google Scholar 

  30. Most E, Zayontz S, Li G, Otterberg E, Sabbag K, Rubash HE (2003) Femoral rollback after cruciate-retaining and stabilizing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:101–113

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mulholland SJ, Wyss UP (2001) Activities of daily living in non-Western cultures: range of motion. Int J Rehabil Res 24:191–198

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nakamura E, Banks SA, Tanaka A, Sei A, Mizuta H (2009) Three-dimensional tibiofemoral kinematics during deep flexion kneeling in a mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:1120–1124

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Nakamura S, Ito H, Yoshitomi H, Kuriyama S, Komistek RD, Matsuda S (2015) Analysis of the flexion gap on in vivo knee kinematics using fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty 30:1237–1342

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nakamura S, Sharma A, Kobayashi M, Ito H, Nakamura K, Zingde SM, Nakamura T, Komistek RD (2014) 3D in vivo femoro-tibial kinematics of tri-condylar total knee arthroplasty during kneeling activities. Knee 21:162–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Niki Y, Takeda Y, Udagawa K, Enomoto H, Toyama Y, Suda Y (2013) Is greater than 145° of deep knee flexion under weight-bearing conditions safe after total knee arthroplasty? A fluoroscopic analysis of Japanese-style deep knee flexion. Bone Jt J 95B:782–787

    Google Scholar 

  36. Okamoto N, Breslauer L, Hedley AK, Mizuta H, Banks SA (2011) In vivo knee kinematics in patients with bilateral total knee arthroplasty of 2 designs. J Arthroplasty 26:914–918

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Schütz P, Taylor WR, Postolka B, Fucentese SF, Koch PP, Freeman MAR, Pinskerova V, List R (2019) Kinematic evaluation of the GMK sphere implant during gait activities: a dynamic videofluoroscopy study. J Orthop Res 37:2337–2347

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Scott CEH, Bugler KE, Clement ND, MacDonald D, Howie CR, Biant LC (2012) Patient expectations of arthroplasty of the hip and knee. J Bone Jt Surg Br 94:974–981

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Scott G, Imam MAA, Eifert A, Freeman MAR, Pinskerova V, Field REE, Skinner J, Banks SA (2016) Can a total knee arthroplasty be both rotationally unconstrained and anteroposteriorly stabilised? Bone Jt Res 5:80–86

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg Surg 73:712–716

    Google Scholar 

  41. Tanaka A, Nakamura E, Okamoto N, Banks SA, Mizuta H (2011) Three-dimensional kinematics during deep-flexion kneeling in mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee 18:412–416

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Verra WC, van den Boom LG, Jacobs W, Clement DJ, Wymenga AA, Nelissen RG (2013) Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004803.pub3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Vertullo CJ, Grimbeek PM, Graves SE, Lewis PL (2017) Surgeon’s preference in total knee replacement: a quantitative examination of attributes, reasons for alteration, and barriers to change. J Arthroplasty 32:2980–2989

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Walker PS, Hajek JV (1972) The load-bearing area in the knee joint. J Biomech 5:581–589

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Watanabe T, Ishizuki M, Muneta T, Banks SA (2013) Knee kinematics in anterior cruciate ligament-substituting arthroplasty with or without the posterior cruciate ligament. J Arthroplasty 28:548–552

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Watanabe T, Muneta T, Koga H, Horie M, Nakamura T, Otabe K, Nakagawa Y, Katakura M, Sekiya I (2016) In-vivo kinematics of high-flex posterior-stabilized total knee prosthesis designed for Asian populations. Int Orthop 40:2295–2302

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Watanabe T, Muneta T, Sekiya I, Banks SA (2015) Intraoperative joint gaps and mediolateral balance affect postoperative knee kinematics in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Knee 22:527–534

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wylde V, Artz N, Howells N, Blom AW (2019) Kneeling ability after total knee replacement. EFORT Open Rev 4:460–467

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Yildirim G, Walker PS, Sussman-Fort J, Aggarwal G, White B, Klein GR (2007) The contact locations in the knee during high flexion. Knee 14:379–384

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

JTL conceived the study and participated in its design, reviewed articles for inclusion and quality, performed meta-analysis, and drafted the manuscript. DMP participated in the study design, reviewed articles for inclusion and quality, and participated in drafting the manuscript. JMS participated in the study design, reviewed articles for inclusion and quality, and participated in drafting the manuscript. PNS participated in the study design and participated in drafting the manuscript. CRG participated in drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph T. Lynch.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No authors have any conflicts of interest. All individual forms are provided.

Ethical approval

As this was a systematic review, ethical approval was not required.

Informed consent

As this was a systematic review, informed consent was not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lynch, J.T., Scarvell, J.M., Galvin, C.R. et al. Influence of component design on in vivo tibiofemoral contact patterns during kneeling after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 446–466 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05949-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05949-y

Keywords

Navigation