Increased posterior translation but similar clinical outcomes using ultracongruent instead of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasties in a prospective randomized trial

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the posterior tibial translation after ultracongruent (UC) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with two different UC with different heights in the anterior lip, and two different PS designs. This study also aimed to compare the range of motion (ROM) and outcomes scores after the use of these TKA models. It was hypothesised less posterior tibial translation after PS than after UC TKA, and less posterior tibial translation with a higher anterior lip in the UC insert than with a lower one. Methods It was designed as a prospective randomized study of a group of 120 patients operated with a cemented TKA. To clarify the main purpose of the study, four groups were analysed using different polyethylene designs: Triathlon PS insert in group one, Triathlon UC insert in group two, U2 PS insert in group three and U2 UC insert in group four. One year after surgery, a forced posterior drawer with a Telos Stress applying 15 kg of force posteriorly on the proximal tibia at 90° of knee flexion was analysed in the lateral radiograph. Limb alignment, tibial posterior slope and posterior condylar offset were also studied. Results 30 patients were included in each group. The average age was 73 years. There were 72.2% female and 27.8% male patients. There were no significant differences in any demographic or radiographic studied variables, preoperative range of motion (ROM) or preoperative Knee Society Scores (KSS) among the different groups. One year after surgery, the average postoperative ROM and the postoperative KSS Knee and KSS Function scores improved in respect of the preoperative values in all the groups. There were no significant differences in the postoperative outcome scores among the different groups ( p = n.s.). Postoperative alignment of the limb, tibial posterior slope and posterior condylar offset were similar in the 4 study groups ( p = n.s.). The postoperative posterior tibial translation was different between groups: the PS groups (groups 1 and 3) showed significant inferior values ( p < 0.001) in respect of the UC groups (groups 2 and 4). There were no differences between both groups of PS models, but there was a significant increase in the posterior tibial translation of the Triathlon UC insert (11.2 mm SD 3.2) in respect of the U2 UC insert (6.1 mm SD 4.5) ( p = 0.004). Conclusions UC inserts restrict the posterior tibial translation after TKA less than PS inserts, but a design with a high anterior lip in the polyethylene UC insert can better control the posterior tibial translation than an insert with a small anterior lip. Level of evidence Level I. Randomised controlled trial.