Khanuja HS, Buddhiraju A, Singh PP, Kagan R, Mont MA, Hegde V. Condylar-Stabilized Designs in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Classification System and Review of Outcomes.
J Arthroplasty 2025:S0883-5403(25)00534-0. [PMID:
40398578 DOI:
10.1016/j.arth.2025.05.039]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2024] [Revised: 05/09/2025] [Accepted: 05/12/2025] [Indexed: 05/23/2025] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
The increasing use of condylar-stabilized (CS) bearing designs in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be attributed to bony preservation with the option for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) resection without compromising kinematics. Although there are a variety of CS designs, there is no system of nomenclature for them, making comparisons challenging. This study proposes a comprehensive classification system of differing CS designs based on articular surface and femoral component geometries and kinematic principles. We also review the literature for functional outcomes and survivorship associated with each CS design.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
There were 31 CS designs noted from 21 manufacturers identified using a combination of literature reviews, web searches, surgeon input, and manufacturer correspondence. The designs were subsequently categorized into distinct groups based on their geometry, the location of polyethylene buildup, conformity compared to their CR counterparts, and the radius of the femoral component. A scoping review was conducted to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), ranges of motion (ROM), and survivorships associated with each category. After exclusion, we reviewed 91 studies in the PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases.
RESULTS
We established five distinct categories: 1) anterior-stabilized; 2) ultracongruent; 3) medial-stabilized; 4) medial-pivot; and 5) lateral-stabilized. There were 12 studies describing anterior-stabilized designs, 15 describing ultracongruent, two describing medial-stabilized, 55 describing medial-pivot, and three describing lateral-stabilized designs. All CS designs demonstrated significant improvements in PROMs and ROM postoperatively, with survivorship of at least 90% and follow-up ranging from two to 18 years in some designs.
CONCLUSIONS
The classification developed in this study will allow for appropriate grouping and comparison of distinct condylar-stabilized implants. As presented in this review, there are favorable short-term functional outcomes across all CS subcategories. Although the data associated with these designs appears promising, it is limited. Further research comparing different designs to understand how differing geometries impact kinematic function and clinical outcomes may potentially inform implant selection and future design.
Collapse