Skip to main content

Similar kinematic patterns between revision total stabilized (TS) and primary posterior stabilized (PS) knee prostheses: a prospective case–controlled study with gait assessment



There are increased surgical considerations when revising total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in active patients. Few studies have assessed if a semi-constrained [Total Stabilized (TS)] prostheses has similar knee biomechanics to a primary posterior stabilized (PS) prosthesis. The aim was to compare the gait parameters in patients with PS or TS TKA and normal controls.


32 patients with TKA were prospectively included with either a primary PS (n = 15) or a revision TS (n = 17) prosthesis. Gait analysis was performed at 6 months postoperatively for each patient, with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®) assessing the displacement of the tibia relative to the femur during the different gait phases (flexion/extension, anterior/posterior translation, adduction/abduction, internal/external rotation). A control group (n = 12) of healthy knees was compared with the TKA groups.


There were no significant kinematic differences between PS and TS groups. The maximum knee flexion during gait was 53° ± 8.1° in the PS group vs 52° ± 8.7° in the TS group. The antero-posterior translation was similar in both group (2.3 ± 0.5 mm vs 2.6 ± 0.9 mm, respectively). Peak varus angle during loading and swing phase was slightly higher in the TS group (2.7° ± 0.7° and 5.2° ± 0.9°) than in the PS group (2.9° ± 0.6° and 5.6° ± 1.2°), without significant difference. The ranges in internal/external rotation were similar between PS and TS TKA (3.7° ± 0.5° vs 3.3° ± 0.6°, respectively). Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group except in the frontal plane.


Single radius TS TKA has gait parameters similar to single radius PS TKA. Use of a single radius TS TKA in revision TKA is not detrimental to a patient’s gait pattern. Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group.

Level of evidence

Prospective, case–control study; Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3



Body mass index


Forgotten joint score


Femoral mechanical angle


Hip knee ankle


International knee score






Range of motion


Total knee arthroplasty


Tibial mechanical angle




  1. Abdelnasser MK, Elsherif ME, Bakr H, Mahran M, Othman MHM, Khalifa Y (2019) All types of component malrotation affect the early patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 31:5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adriani M, Malahias MA, Gu A, Kahlenberg CA, Ast MP, Sculco PK (2020) Determining the validity, reliability, and utility of the forgotten joint score: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 35:1137–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, Jameson S, Gregg P, Deehan D (2012) Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:2244–2252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beach A, Regazzola G, Neri T, Verheul R, Parker D (2019) The effect of knee prosthesis design on tibiofemoral biomechanics during extension tasks following total knee arthroplasty. Knee 26:1010–1019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Benjamin B, Pietrzak JRT, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS (2018) A functional comparison of medial pivot and condylar knee designs based on patient outcomes and parameters of gait. Bone Jt J 100:76–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE (1998) Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Blakeney W, Clement J, Desmeules F, Hagemeister N, Riviere C, Vendittoli PA (2019) Kinematic alignment in total knee arthroplasty better reproduces normal gait than mechanical alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1410–1417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bytyqi D, Shabani B, Cheze L, Neyret P, Lustig S (2017) Does a third condyle TKA restore normal gait kinematics in varus knees? In vivo knee kinematic analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:409–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bytyqi D, Shabani B, Lustig S, Cheze L, Karahoda Gjurgjeala N, Neyret P (2014) Gait knee kinematic alterations in medial osteoarthritis: three dimensional assessment. Int Orthop 38:1191–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Debette C, Parratte S, Maucort-Boulch D, Blanc G, Pauly V, Lustig S et al (2014) French adaptation of the new knee society scoring system for total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100:531–534

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Walker SA, Cheal EJ, Stiehl JB (2001) Femoral condylar lift-off in vivo in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83:33–39

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Group KATT, Johnston L, MacLennan G, McCormack K, Ramsay C, Walker A (2009) The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91:134–141

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hallen LG, Lindahl O (1966) The “screw-home” movement in the knee-joint. Acta Orthop Scand 37:97–106

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hamilton DF, Howie CR, Burnett R, Simpson AH, Patton JT (2015) Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty: challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Jt J 97-B:723–728

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hamilton DF, Simpson PM, Patton JT, Howie CR, Burnett R (2017) Aseptic revision knee arthroplasty with total stabilizer prostheses achieves similar functional outcomes to primary total knee arthroplasty at 2 years: a longitudinal cohort study. J Arthroplasty 32(1234–1240):e1231

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hirschmann MT, Moser LB, Amsler F, Behrend H, Leclerq V, Hess S (2019) Functional knee phenotypes: a novel classification for phenotyping the coronal lower limb alignment based on the native alignment in young non-osteoarthritic patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1394–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Iwano T, Kurosawa H, Tokuyama H, Hoshikawa Y (1990) Roentgenographic and clinical findings of patellofemoral osteoarthrosis. With special reference to its relationship to femorotibial osteoarthrosis and etiologic factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 252:190–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kimura A (2013) The effects of hamstring stretching on leg rotation during knee extension. J Phys Ther Sci 25:697–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Klouche S, Giesinger JM, Sariali EH (2018) Translation, cross-cultural adaption and validation of the French version of the forgotten joint score in total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 104:657–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kramers-de Quervain IA, Stussi E, Muller R, Drobny T, Munzinger U, Gschwend N (1997) Quantitative gait analysis after bilateral total knee arthroplasty with two different systems within each subject. J Arthroplasty 12:168–179

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Larsen B, Jacofsky MC, Jacofsky DJ (2015) Quantitative, comparative assessment of gait between single-radius and multi-radius total knee arthroplasty designs. J Arthroplasty 30:1062–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lee WG, Song EK, Choi SW, Jin QH, Seon JK (2020) Comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining and high-flexion cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty design. J Arthroplasty 35:752–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewis PL, Graves SE, Robertsson O, Sundberg M, Paxton EW, Prentice HA et al (2020) Increases in the rates of primary and revision knee replacement are reducing: a 15-year registry study across 3 continents. Acta Orthop 91:414–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li M, Fu G, Huang W, Lin B, Zhang R, Zhang Y et al (2020) Alterations of kinematics in knees after single versus multiple radius femoral prostheses total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21:434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lustig S, Magnussen RA, Cheze L, Neyret P (2012) The KneeKG system: a review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:633–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Malviya A, Bettinson K, Kurtz SM, Deehan DJ (2012) When do patient-reported assessments peak after revision knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1728–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Martin JR, Fehring KA, Watts CD, Levy DL, Springer BD, Kim RH (2017) Coronal alignment predicts the use of semi-constrained implants in contemporary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 24:863–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. McNair PJ, Boocock MG, Dominick ND, Kelly RJ, Farrington BJ, Young SW (2018) A comparison of walking gait following mechanical and kinematic alignment in total knee joint replacement. J Arthroplasty 33:560–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pandit H, van Duren BH, Price M, Tilley S, Gill HS, Thomas NP et al (2013) Constraints in posterior-stabilised TKA kinematics: a comparison of two generations of an implant. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2800–2809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pincheira PA, De La Maza E, Silvestre R, Guzman-Venegas R, Becerra M (2019) Comparison of total hip arthroplasty surgical approaches by statistical parametric mapping. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 62:7–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL, Mohamed K, Ravichandran A, Saleh RM et al (2002) Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 17:967–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schmidt A, Batailler C, Lording T, Badet R, Servien E, Writing C et al (2020) Why reintervention after total knee arthroplasty fails? A consecutive cohort of 1170 surgeries. J Arthroplasty 35:2550–2560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shield WP 3rd, Greenwell PH, Chapman DM, Dalury DF (2019) Ignore the patella in revision total knee surgery: a minimum 5-year follow-up with patella component retention. J Arthroplasty 34:S262–S265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Shimizu N, Tomita T, Yamazaki T, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2014) In vivo movement of femoral flexion axis of a single-radius total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29:2407–2411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Uvehammer J, Karrholm J, Brandsson S (2000) In vivo kinematics of total knee arthroplasty. Concave versus posterior-stabilised tibial joint surface. J Bone Jt Surg Br 82:499–505

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wautier D, Thienpont E (2017) Changes in anteroposterior stability and proprioception after different types of knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:1792–1800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Weber P, Gollwitzer H (2021) Arthroplasty of the knee: current techniques for implant alignment. Z Orthop Unfall.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Worhacz K, Jacofsky MC, Jacofsky DJ, Ahmed S (2018) Comparing the efficacy of the total stabilizing and posterior stabilizing knee prostheses in obese and preobese females: a retrospective cohort study. J Knee Surg 31:884–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Yeo JH, Seon JK, Lee DH, Song EK (2019) No difference in outcomes and gait analysis between mechanical and kinematic knee alignment methods using robotic total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1142–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Prospective controlled study funded by Stryker®.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



CB: study design, data collection, literature review and manuscript writing. CoFO: data collection, statistical analysis, literature review and manuscript writing. CaFA: study design, literature review and manuscript editing. AN: statistical analysis and manuscript editing. ES: study design, literature review and manuscript editing. SL: study design, supervision, literature review and manuscript editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cécile Batailler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

CB, CoFo, and AN declare that they have no conflict of interest. CaFa: consultant for Zimmer/Biomet. ES: consultant for Corin. SL: consultant for Stryker, Smith Nephew, Heraeus, Depuy Synthes; institutional research support from Groupe Lepine, Amplitude; Editorial Board for Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am).

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was registered at (Identifier: NCT03898544) and was approved by our hospital’s Institutional Review Board as a Prospective Case Control study (study ID Number: 69HCL19_0089).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Batailler, C., Foissey, C., Fary, C. et al. Similar kinematic patterns between revision total stabilized (TS) and primary posterior stabilized (PS) knee prostheses: a prospective case–controlled study with gait assessment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30, 2714–2722 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Total knee arthroplasty
  • Revision surgery
  • Posterior stabilized knee prothesis
  • Total stabilized knee prothesis
  • Semi-constrained prostheses
  • Gait analysis