BACKGROUND: Different levels of constraint for total knee arthroplasty can be considered for revision surgeries. While prior studies have assessed the clinical impact and patient outcomes of condylar constrained knee (CCK) and rotating hinged (RTH) implants, nowadays little is known about the biomechanical effects induced by different levels of constraint on bone stress and implant micromotions. METHODS: CCK and RTH implant models were analyzed using a previously validated numerical model. Each system was investigated during a squat and a lunge motor task. The force in the joint, the bone and implant stresses, and micromotions in this latter were analyzed and compared among designs. RESULTS: Different activities induced similar bone stress distributions in both implants. The RTH implant induces mostly high stress compared to the CCK implant, especially in the region close to tip of the stem. However, in the proximal tibia, the stresses achieved with the CCK implant is higher than the one calculated for the RTH design, due to the presence of the post-cam system. Accordingly, the condylar constrained design shows higher implant micromotions due to the greater torsional constraint. CONCLUSION: Different levels of constraint in revision arthroplasty were always associated with different biomechanical outputs. RTH implants are characterized by higher tibial stress especially in the region close to the stem tip; condylar implants, instead, increase the proximal tibial stress and therefore implant micromotions, as a result of the presence of the post-cam mechanism. Surgeons will have to consider these findings to guarantee the best outcome for the patient and the related change in the bone stress and implant fixation induced by different levels of constrain in a total knee arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND: Different levels of constraint for total knee arthroplasty can be considered for revision surgeries. While prior studies have assessed the clinical impact and patient outcomes of condylar constrained knee (CCK) and rotating hinged (RTH) implants, nowadays little is known about the biomechanical effects induced by different levels of constraint on bone stress and implant micromotions. METHODS: CCK and RTH implant models were analyzed using a previously validated numerical model. Each system was investigated during a squat and a lunge motor task. The force in the joint, the bone and implant stresses, and micromotions in this latter were analyzed and compared among designs. RESULTS: Different activities induced similar bone stress distributions in both implants. The RTH implant induces mostly high stress compared to the CCK implant, especially in the region close to tip of the stem. However, in the proximal tibia, the stresses achieved with the CCK implant is higher than the one calculated for the RTH design, due to the presence of the post-cam system. Accordingly, the condylar constrained design shows higher implant micromotions due to the greater torsional constraint. CONCLUSION: Different levels of constraint in revision arthroplasty were always associated with different biomechanical outputs. RTH implants are characterized by higher tibial stress especially in the region close to the stem tip; condylar implants, instead, increase the proximal tibial stress and therefore implant micromotions, as a result of the presence of the post-cam mechanism. Surgeons will have to consider these findings to guarantee the best outcome for the patient and the related change in the bone stress and implant fixation induced by different levels of constrain in a total knee arthroplasty.