The knee prosthesis constraint dilemma: Biomechanical comparison between varus-valgus constrained implants and rotating hinge prosthesis. A cadaver study.

The real degree of constriction of rotating hinge knee (RHK) and condylar constrained prostheses (CCK) is a matter of discussion in revision knee arthroplasty. The objectives of this study are to compare the tibial rotation of both implants and validate the use of inertial sensors with optical tracking system as movement measurement tools. A total of 16 cadaver knees were used. Eight knees were replaced using a RHK (Endomodel LINK), and the remaining eight received a CCK prosthesis (LCCK, Zimmer). Tibial rotation range of motion was measured in full extension and at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion, with four continuous waveforms for each measurement. Measurements were made using two inertial sensors with specific software and compared with measurements obtained using the gold standard technique - the motion capture camera. The comparison of the accuracy of both measurement methods showed no statistically significant differences between inertial sensors and motion capture cameras, with p > .1; the mean error for tibial rotation was 0.21°. Tibial rotation in the RHK was significantly greater than in the CCK (5.25° vs. 2.28°, respectively), p < .05. We have shown that RHK permit greater tibial rotation, being closer to physiological values than CCKs. Inertial sensors have been validated as an effective and accurate method of measuring knee movement. The clinical significance: RHK appears to represent a lower constriction degree than CCK systems.