Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 25, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Changes in anteroposterior stability and proprioception after different types of knee arthroplasty
Delphine Wautier1, Emmanuel Thienpont2
1Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Purpose:
To compare different types of knee arthroplasty, in selected patients with a knee score above 80 points, for their post-operative changes in anteroposterior (AP) laxity and proprioception.
Methods:
Four groups of each ten patients were tested for AP translation after different types of arthroplasty with a KT-1000 device at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. Proprioception of the joint was evaluated by joint position sense with three different tests. Clinical outcome of stability and proprioceptive testing was analysed by comparing the results of three (KSS, KOOS and FJS-12) patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMS) for each of the different implant types.
Results:
Anteroposterior laxity was observed at 30° and 90° of flexion for the two PS TKA designs included in this study, but not for the UKA or the medial pivot design. All knee designs, except UKA, had an increased laxity at 60° of flexion. Proprioceptive testing was inconclusive. PROMS were not able to identify differences in clinical outcome among different knee designs in these selected patients, despite observed differences in AP laxity.
Conclusion:
Increased AP laxity is a result of the surgical procedure in knee arthroplasty. UKA is the only design mimicking native laxity of the knee. A medial pivot design can obtain the same result as UKA at 30° and 90° of flexion, but not at the importantly cited 60° of flexion as tested under non-load-bearing conditions. The clinical relevance of this study is that despite of an important range of AP translations among the different knee designs, good-to-excellent patient-reported outcome was observed within the findings of this study.
Level Of Evidence:
II.
