RESUMEN
Background The most important cause of patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is pain. Component rotation is an important factor in the clinical success of TKA. This study aims to determine component rotational errors in patients with mobile- and fixed-bearing polyethylene inserts after TKA and also to evaluate the effect of possible malrotations on clinical outcomes. Methods Seventy-five knees from sixty-six patients who underwent TKA were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether they received a mobile-bearing polyethylene insert (group 1, n = 48) or a fixed-bearing polyethylene insert (group 2, n = 27). The Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and the Oxford Knee Score were used for the clinical evaluation of the patients. The rotational state of the components was evaluated by computed tomography. Results The HSS, WOMAC, Lysholm, and Oxford clinical scores were not significant between the two groups (p > 0.05). The effect of femoral versus tibial component rotational deviation on clinical scores was not significant between the two groups (p > 0.05). Component rotational differences did not have a significant effect on the degree of knee flexion and extension between groups (p > 0.05). When the combined rotations of the components were compared with the clinical scores of function, no significant difference was detected between groups (p > 0.05). In addition, no significant difference between the operated sides of the patients and the combined component internal rotations was found (p > 0.05). Conclusion Although component rotation is an important factor in the clinical success of TKA, the current study did not find a clear association between the clinical results after TKA and the internal rotation of components. Component internal rotation alone is not an important predisposing factor for pain development after TKA. We believe that this may be attributed to the significant effects of patient expectation, which is often ignored, on clinical scores.