Is a greater degree of constraint really harmful? Clinical biomechanical comparative study between condylar constrained knee and rotating hinge prosthesis.

Background: The real degree of constraint of rotating hinge knee and condylar constrained prostheses is a matter of discussion in revision knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to compare the tibial rotation between implants in the clinical settings.

Methods: An investigator blinded experimental study was designed including 20 patients: in 10 of them a rotating hinge knee prosthesis (Endomodel®, LINK) was implanted and in the remaining 10 a constrained condylar knee prosthesis (LCCK®, Zimmer) was used. A medial parapatellar approach was performed and implantation was performed according to conventional surgical technique. Tibial rotation was measured with two accelerometers in full extension and at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. Pre and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was recorded.

Findings: Both groups were homogenous in age (73.4 years in rotating hinge knee prosthesis vs 74 years in constrained condylar knee group), sex, laterality and preoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (p > 0.05). The postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was significantly higher in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group (80.98 vs 76.28). The degrees of tibial rotation measured by inertial sensors in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group were also significantly higher than those measured in the constrained condylar knee group (5.66° vs 2.1°) with p = 0.001.

Interpretation: Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower rotational constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice and it may increase the clinical satisfaction. The clinical significance: Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice.