Advertisement

Tibial Component

What Are the Best Configurations for Durability?
  • Peter S. Walker
Chapter
  • 28 Downloads

Abstract

In the earliest artificial knees, the tibial component designs varied considerably. The Gunston, together with unicompartmental knees, used small separate parts for each condyle. The Freeman-Swanson used a plate of plastic covering the entire proximal tibial surface. The Townley used a single plastic component with a central slot for cruciate ligament preservation. In all cases there were some problems of fixation to the bone, due to excessive stresses on the trabecular bone, to tilting of a component which transmitted all the shear and torque forces, or to deformation of thin all-plastic components. As a result of this experience, designs were made with partial conformity to reduce the shear and torque. Metal-backing was used to stiffen the component. However the most effective change was to use a 40 mm fixation peg in the center of the component. Even if there was inadequate cement penetration on the flat tibial surface, the central peg maintained strong fixation. Another advance in design was modularity, where the plastic insert was fixed into a metal tray. In this way, different thicknesses could easily be tested at surgery to achieve ideal soft tissue balancing. A surprising result has been that in long-term follow-up, all-plastic components have equivalent durability to metal-backed.

Keywords

Tibial component Tibial fixation Conformity Central peg Metal-backing All-plastic Modularity Plastic insert Metal tray 

References

  1. Abernethy PJ, Robinson CM, Fowler RM. Fracture of the metal tibial tray after kinematic total knee replacement. A common cause of early aseptic failure. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78(2):220–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahir SP, Blunn GW, Haider H, Walker PS. Evaluation of a testing method for the fatigue performance of total knee tibial trays. J Biomech. 1999;32(10):1049–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attenborough CG. Total knee replacement using the stabilized gliding prosthesis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1976;58(1):4–14.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartel DL, Burstein AH, Santavicca EA, Insall JN. Performance of the tibial component in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(7):1026–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Behrens JC, Walker PS, Shoji H. Variations in strength and structure of cancellous bone at the knee. J Biomech. 1974;7(3):201–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cloutier JM. Results of total knee arthroplasty with a non-constrained prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(7):906–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eftekhar NS. Adjustable intramedullary replacement of the knee: evolution of surgical technique and prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;(137):235–43.Google Scholar
  8. Freeman MA, Swanson SA, Todd RC. Total replacement of the knee using the Freeman-Swanson knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1973;(94):153–70.Google Scholar
  9. Gudnason A, Hailer NP, A WD, Sundberg M, Robertsson O. All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial components-an analysis of 27,733 cruciate-retaining total knee replacements from the Swedish knee arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(12):994–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gunston FH. Polycentric knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic simulation of normal knee movement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1971;53(2):272–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Houdek MT, Watts CD, Wyles CC, Martin JR, Trousdale RT, Taunton MJ. Metal or modularity: why do metal-backed tibias have inferior outcomes to all-polyethylene tibial components in patients with osteoarthritis. J Arthroplast. 2017;32(3):836–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hvid I, Hansen SL. Trabecular bone strength patterns at the proximal tibial epiphysis. J Orthop Res. 1985;3:464–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewis JL, Askew MJ, Jaycox DP. A comparative evaluation of tibial component designs of total knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(1):129–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meier M, Webb J, Collins JE, Beckman J, Fitz W. Do modern total knee replacements improve tibial coverage? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26:3219–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murase K, Crowninshield RD, Pedersen DR, Chang TS. An analysis of tibial component design in total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech. 1983;16(1):13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Paganelli JV, Skinner HB, Mote CD. Prediction of fatigue failure of a total knee replacement tibial plateau using finite element analysis. Orthopedics. 1988;11(8):1161–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Pritchett JW. Bicruciate-retaining Total knee replacement provides satisfactory function and implant survivorship at 23 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(7):2327–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ranawat CS, Shine JJ. Duo-condylar total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1973;94:185–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sisko ZW, Teeter MG, Lanting BA, et al. Current total knee designs: does baseplate roughness or locking mechanism design affect polyethylene backside wear? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2970–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Skolnick MD, Coventry MB, Ilstrup DM. Geometric total knee arthroplasty. A two-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976;58(6):749–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sledge CB, Ewald FC. Total knee arthroplasty experience at the Robert Breck Brigham hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(145):78–84.Google Scholar
  22. Swanson SA, Freeman MA, Heath JC. Laboratory tests on total joint replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1973;55(4):759–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Townley CO. The anatomic total knee resurfacing arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(192):82–96.Google Scholar
  24. Walker PS, Hajek JV. The load-bearing area in the knee joint. J Biomech. 1972;5(6):581–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Walker PS, Hsieh HH. Conformity in condylar replacement knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg. 1977;59(2):222–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Walker PS, Ranawat C, Insall J. Fixation of the tibial components of condylar replacement knee prostheses. J Biomech. 1976;9(4):269–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Westrich GH, Laskin RS, Haas SB, Sculco TP. Resection specimen analysis of tibial coverage in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:163–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter S. Walker
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations