Journal of Orthopedics and Joint Surgery

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2025)
Volume  6 (2024)
Volume  5 (2023)
Volume  4 (2022)
Volume  3 (2021)
Volume  2 (2020)
Volume  1 (2019)
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2025 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Does Restoration of Native Posterior Tibial Slope Influence the Functional Outcome in Anterior Stabilized Knee?

Ajmal Sainudeen, Karthik Selvaraj Murugappan, Adithkumar S

Keywords : Anterior stabilized, Cruciate-retaining, Oxford Knee Score, Posterior tibial slope, Range of motion, Total knee arthroplasty

Citation Information : Sainudeen A, Murugappan KS, S A. Does Restoration of Native Posterior Tibial Slope Influence the Functional Outcome in Anterior Stabilized Knee?. J Orth Joint Surg 2025; 7 (1):15-21.

DOI: 10.5005/jojs-10079-1188

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 15-01-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2025; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: The primary objective of our study was to investigate the relationship and effects of posterior tibial slope (PTS) on functional status and range of motion (ROM) in primary cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using anterior stabilized (AS) insert. Materials and methods: Ninety primary TKAs of 70 patients were analyzed retrospectively for the relationship between PTS and functional status after AS TKA. The PTS was measured using digital radiographs with a knee lateral view. Both functional status and ROM were assessed for each patient with Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and universal standard goniometer respectively at the final follow-up visit by the same orthopedic surgeon. Results: Our study comprised 56 women and 14 men having a mean age of 63.01. The preop PTS mean is 14.58 and postop PTS mean is 10.5. On data analysis, the mean knee functional score of patients with PTS < 8 is 39.5 and PTS > 8 is 37.04 with p-value 0.204. Postop oxford mean is 38.3 with PTS difference < 6 and 37.4 with PTS difference > 6 having p-value 0.456. Postop ROM is 113 with PTS difference < 6 and 115.8 with PTS difference > 6 having p-value 0.260. Conclusions: Restoration of native slope is acceptable for AS insert. For AS knee, a slope cut taken for CR knee might be tolerated. We found postop PTS difference < 6° provided better functional outcome compared to those with difference > 6° AS TKA.

PDF Share
  1. Ersin M, Demirel M, Civan M, et al. The effect of posterior tibial slope on anteroposterior stability in posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2023;24:390. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06507-6
  2. Pan XQ, Li F, Liu JH, et al. An investigation into whether changes in the posterior tibial slope affect the outcome of cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty by affecting tibiofemoral articular contact kinematics. Heliyon 2023;9(5):e15637. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15637
  3. Goldstein WM, Raab DJ, Gleason TF, et al. Why posterior cruciate-retaining and substituting total knee replacements have similar ranges of motion. The importance of posterior condylar offset and cleanout of posterior condylar space. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88(Suppl 4):182–188. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00588
  4. Fujimoto E, Sasashige Y, Masuda Y, et al. Significant effect of the posterior tibial slope and medial/lateral ligament balance on knee flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013;21(12):2704–2712. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-012-2059-6
  5. Bellemans J, Robijns F, Duerinckx J, et al. The influence of tibial slope on maximal flexion after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2005;13(3):193–196. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-004-0557-x
  6. Dennis DA. The stiff total knee arthroplasty: causes and cures. Orthopedics 2013;24:901–902. DOI: 10.3928/0147-7447-20010901-36
  7. Walker PS. Requirements for successful total knee replacements. Design considerations. Orthop Clin North Am 1989;20(1):15–29. PMID: 2919076.
  8. Seo SS, Kim CW, Kim JH, et al. Clinical results associated with changes of posterior tibial slope in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2013;25(1):25–29. DOI: 10.5792/ksrr.2013.25.1.25
  9. Fujito T, Tomita T, Yamazaki T, et al. Influence of posterior tibial slope on kinematics after cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018;33(12):3778.e1–3782.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.07.029
  10. Massin P, Gournay A. Optimization of the posterior condylar offset, tibial slope, and condylar roll-back in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006;21(6):889–896. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.10.019
  11. Peters CL, Mulkey P, Erickson J, et al. Comparison of total knee arthroplasty with highly congruent anterior-stabilized bearings versus a cruciate-retaining design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:175–180. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3068-6
  12. Laskin RS, Maruyama Y, Villaneuva M, et al. Deep-dish congruent tibial component use in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;380:36–44. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200011000-00006
  13. Mazzucchelli L, Deledda D, Rosso F, et al. Cruciate retaining and cruciate substituting ultra-congruent insert. Ann Transl Med 2016;4:2. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.12.52
  14. Stronach BM, Adams JC, Jones LC, et al. The effect of sacrificing the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasties that use a highly congruent polyethylene component. J Arthroplasty 2019;34(2):286–289. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.006
  15. Yoo JH, Chang CB, Shin KS, et al. Anatomical references to assess the posterior tibial slope in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of 5 anatomical axes. J Arthroplasty 2008;23(4):586–592. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.006
  16. Oxford University Innovation. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS). 2016. Available from https://innovation.ox.ac.uk/outcomemeasures/oxford-knee-score-oks.
  17. Norkin CC, White DJ. Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. FA Davis; 2016.
  18. Jones CW, Jacobs H, Shumborski S, et al. Sagittal stability and implant design affect patient reported outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020;35(3):747–751. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.020
  19. Shi W, Jiang Y, Zhao X, et al. The influence of posterior tibial slope on the mid-term clinical effect of medial-pivot knee prosthesis. J Orthop Surg Res 2021;16:563. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02704-y
  20. Giffin JR, Vogrin TM, Zantop T, et al. Effects of increasing tibial slope on the biomechanics of the knee. Am J Sports Med 2004;32(2):376–382. DOI: 10.1177/0363546503258880
  21. Braun V, Biasca N, Romero J. Factors influencing postoperative flexion after mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 2001;83–B (Supll II):133.
  22. Czekaj J, Fary C, Gaillard T, et al. Does low-constraint mobile bearing knee prosthesis give satisfactory results for severe coronal deformities? A five to twelve year follow up study. Int Orthop 2017;41(7):1369–1377. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3452-z
  23. Châtain F, Gaillard TH, Denjean S, et al. Outcomes of 447 SCORE® highly congruent mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties after 5–10 years follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2013;99(6):681–686. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.05.003
  24. Metsovitis SR, Ploumis AL, Chantzidis PT, et al. Rotaglide total knee arthroplasty: a long-term follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:878–884. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01702
  25. Roh YW, Jang J, Choi WC, et al. Preservation of the posterior cruciate ligament is not helpful in highly conforming mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013;21:2850–2859. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-012-2265-2
  26. Movassaghi K, Patel A, Ghulam-Jelani Z, et al. Modern total knee arthroplasty bearing designs and the role of the posterior cruciate ligament. Arthroplast Today 2023;21:101130. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101130
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.