Medial-pivot design does not provide superior clinical results compared to posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty despite kinematic differences during step-up and lunge activities: A prospective randomized controlled trial under medial tight soft tissue balance.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare in vivo kinematics during weight-bearing daily activities and determine the relationship with clinical outcomes in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a medial-pivot (MP, Evolution™) versus a posterior-stabilized (PS, Persona®) design under constant conditions of intraoperative soft tissue balance.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing MP or PS-TKA under similar conditions of soft tissue balance were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Outcome measures included clinical knee society scores (KSS) and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS). A kinematic assessment was conducted while the participants performed lunge and step-up activities under fluoroscopic guidance.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients in each arm completed 1-year follow-up and were included in the analysis. All patients experienced pain relief and satisfactory knee function postoperatively. In kinematics, in the MP arm, the medial femoral condyle remained consistent, whereas the lateral femoral condyle gradually shifted posteriorly with increasing knee flexion. Conversely, in the PS arm, paradoxical anterior movement of the medial femoral condyle accompanied the lateral pivot motion. During lunge and step-up activities, a medial-pivot motion was observed in 83% and 72% of knees in the MP arm, respectively, compared with 22% and 11% in the PS arm. Despite these differences in kinematics, there were no statistically significant differences in the KSS and KOOS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Under weight-bearing conditions during flexion, knees that underwent Evolution™ MP-TKA did not show superior clinical results compared to Persona® PS-TKA, despite exhibiting in vivo kinematics closely resembling the normal in vivo pattern.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic studies.