Introduction: The posterior inclination of the tibial component is an important factor that can affect the success of total knee arthroplasty. It can reduce the posterior impingement and thus increase the range of flexion, but it may also induce instability in flexion, anterior impingement between the polyethylene of postero-stabilizing knee prosthesis, and anterior conflict with the cortical bone and the stem. Although the problem is identified, there is still a debate on the ideal inclination angle and the surgical technique to avoid an excessive posterior inclination. The aim of this study was to predict the effect of a posterior inclination of the tibial component on the contact pattern on the tibial insert, using a numerical musculoskeletal model of the knee joint.
Methods:
A 3D finite element model of the knee joint was developed to simulate an active and loaded squat movement after total knee arthroplasty. Flexion was actively controlled by the quadriceps muscle and muscle activations were estimated from EMG data and were synchronized by a feedback algorithm. Two inclinations of the tibial tray were considered: a posterior inclination of 0° or 10°. During the entire range of flexion, the following quantities were calculated: the tibiofemoral and patello-femoral contact force, and the contact pattern on polyethylene insert. The antero-posterior displacement of the contact pattern was also measured. Abaqus 6.7 was used for all analyses.
Results:
The tibio-femoral and patello-femoral contact forces increased during flexion and reached respectively 4 and 7 BW (bodyweight) at 90° of flexion. They were slightly affected by the inclination of the tibial tray. Without posterior inclination, the contact pattern on the tibial insert remained centered. The contact pressure was lower than 5 MPa below 60° of flexion, but exceeded 20 MPa at 90° of flexion. The posterior inclination displaced the contact point posteriorly by 2 to 4 mm.
Conclusion:
The inclination of the tibial tray displaced the contactpattern towards the posterior border of the tibial insert. However, even for 10° of inclination, the contact center remained far from the posterior border (12 mm). There was no instability predicted for this movement.