Biomechanical analysis of different levels of constraint in TKA during daily activities

BACKGROUND: Numerous total knee prosthetic implants are currently available on the orthopedic market, and this variety covers a set of different levels of constraint: among the various models available, a significant role is covered by mobile bearing cruciate-retaining design with an ultra-congruent insert, mobile bearing cruciate-retaining design, fixed-bearing posterior stabilized prosthesis and fixed-bearing constrained condylar knee. A biomechanical comparative study among them could therefore be helpful for the clinical decision-making process. This study aimed to compare the effect of these different levels of constraint in the knee biomechanics of a patient, in three different configurations representing the typical boundary conditions experienced by the knee joint during daily activities. METHOD: The investigation was performed via finite element analysis with a knee model based on an already published and validated one. Four different types of prosthesis designs were analyzed: two mobile-bearing models and two fixed-bearing models, each one having a different level of constraint. The different designs were incorporated in to the 3D finite element model of the lower leg and analyzed in three different configurations reproducing the landing and the taking-off phases occurring during the gait cycle and chair-rising. Implant kinetics (in terms of polyethylene contact areas and contact pressure), polyethylene and tibial bone stresses were calculated under three different loading conditions for each design. RESULTS: The tibial stress distribution in the different regions of interest of the tibia remains relatively homogeneous regardless of the type of design used. The main relevant difference was observed between the mobile and fixed-bearing models, as the contact areas were significantly different between these models in the different loading conditions. As a consequence, significant changes in the stress distribution were observed at the interface between the prosthetic components, but no significant changes were noted on the tibial bone. Moreover, the different models exhibited a symmetrical medial and lateral distribution of the contact areas, which was not always common among all the currently available prostheses (i.e. medial pivot designs). CONCLUSION: The changes of the prosthetic implant did not induce a big variation of the stress distribution in the different regions of the tibial bone, while they significantly changed the distribution of stress at the interface between the prosthetic components. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42836-022-00157-0.