Abstract
INTRODUCTION: During the last years, main attention while performing total knee replacement was paid to femoral component alignment; however, there is still lack of studies concerning tibial baseplate rotational alignment, especially in terms of anatomical designs of knee prosthesis. Some recent studies proved that tibial baseplate malrotation might be a cause of knee pain and patients' dissatisfaction. The aim of this study was to compare tibial component rotation and its coverage on the tibial plateau achieved with curve-on-curve and tibial tuberosity techniques (t-t technique) with use of anatomic knee designs with asymmetric tibial baseplate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 88 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo total knee arthroplasty with use of the PERSONA PS (Zimmer Biomet) knee design with an asymmetric baseplate. The rotation of the tibial component was assessed and performed with two different techniques: curve-on-curve technique and tibial tuberosity technique. Tibial component rotation was measured on computed tomography (CT) scans using the method suggested by Benazzo et al. and designed for asymmetrical implants. For the measurement of the tibial bone coverage, the component surface area was outlined and measured on a proper CT section, then the tibial cut surface area was outlined and measured on a section just below the cement level. Pre- and post-operative range of motion was measured by another independent researcher 12 months post-operatively during follow-up visit. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between both groups in median value of tibial rotation angle: 7° (interquartile range (IQR) = 0-12) in curve-on-curve technique group vs 2° (IQR-1-7) in tibial tuberosity technique group, probability value (p) = 0.0041, with values above 0 meaning external rotation of the component. There was no statistically significant difference between both groups in terms of range of motion (ROM) with average values of 124.3° ± 13.0° for curve-on-curve technique and 125.6° ± 12.8° for t-t technique with p = 0.45. There was a statistically insignificant difference between both groups in terms of coverage percentage in slight favor for curve-on-curve technique (85.9 ± 4.2 vs 84.5 ± 4.8, p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In this study, no difference between the groups in terms of tibial bone coverage and range of motion was proved, even though both techniques differed significantly with values of tibial rotation. Future studies should be focused on influence of specific values of tibial rotation on patient-reported outcomes and survivorship of anatomic knee implants.