The effect of tibial component sizing on patient reported outcome measures following uncemented total knee replacement

• 154 total knee replacements graded by size and position of the tibial component
• 78 anatomically sized, 48 undersized, 28 overhanging
• No difference in the Oxford knee scores, WOMAC, or SF-12 between groups
• No difference in knee pain scores or association with the localisation of knee pain
• Our results suggest that overhang or undersizing is not detrimental to outcome

When performing total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons are required to decide on the most appropriate size of tibial component. As implants are predominantly selected from incremental sizes of a preferred design, it may be necessary for a surgeon to slightly under or oversize the component. There are concerns that overhang could lead to pain from irritation of soft tissues, and an undersized component could lead to subsidence and failure.Patient reported outcome measures were recorded in 154 TKRs at one year postoperatively (in 100 TKRs) and five years post-operatively (in 54 TKRs) in 138 patients. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS), WOMAC and SF-12 were recorded, and a composite pain score was derived from the OKS and WOMAC pain questions. Tibial component size and position were assessed on scaled radiographs and implants were grouped into anatomic sized tibial component (78 TKRs), undersized component (48 TKRs), minor overhang one to three mm (10 TKRs) or major overhang ≥ 3 mm (18 TKRs).There was no statistically significant difference between the mean post-operative OKS, WOMAC, SF-12 or composite pain score of each group. Furthermore, localisation of the site of pain did not correlate with medial or lateral overhang of the tibial component.Our results suggest that tibial component overhang or undersizing is not detrimental to outcome measures or pain.Level of evidence: II