All design s demonstrated posterior – femoral translation and external rotation in kneeling , but posterior-stabilised design s were more posterior at maximal flexion when compared to cruciate retaining .
Modern  TKR prostheses are design ed to restore healthy kinematics including high flexion .
Kneeling is a dem and ing high-flexion activity .
There have been many studies of kneeling kinematics using a plethora of implant design s but no comprehensive comparisons .
Visualisation of contact patterns allows for quantification and comparison of knee kinematics .
The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether there are any differences in the kinematics of kneeling as a function of TKR design .
Surgeon's Preference in Total Knee Replacement: A Quantitative Examination of Attributes, Reasons for Alteration, and Barriers to Change.
BACKGROUND The reasons why surgeons prefer a particular  total knee replacement ( TKR )  to other viable options with lower cost or lower revision risk remain uncertain . This study examined the concept of surgeon 's preference in TKR ;  including the self-assigned utility of their preferred prosthesis , reasons to alter usual preference and barriers to permanently changing preference . METHODS Using a multinational electronic survey , 347 TKR performing orthopedic surgeons were studied using anonymous m and atory responses , mutually exclusive closed options , multiple responses blocking , automatic stem r and omization , Likert scale weighting , and an absence of neutral options . RESULTS The highest rated of the 17 attributes were " reproducibility of outcome , " " best functional outcome , " and " better kinematics . " The lowest rated were a " key-opinion leader or mentor uses it " and " new or innovative . " " Lowest revision risk " ranked 10th , with 19.9 % of surgeons stating it did not influence their preference . Cost did not influence 52.1 % of surgeons and 33.7 % agreed that their institution or system limited their preference . Surgeon 's demographics and preferred prosthesis or technique altered some attribute ratings including surgical volume , country of practice , type of preferred implant ; however , revision risk rating was not altered by any factor . Cost considerations altered rating of barriers to technique change . CONCLUSION Underst and ing why surgeons prefer certain TKR prostheses or techniques to other viable alternatives is vital to reduce unwarranted variation . This study suggests that the self-assigned reasons driving surgeon 's preferences , reasons for preference alteration , and barriers to change are multifactorial , diverse , and complex , with revision risk not being the highest rated attribute
All design s demonstrated posterior – femoral translation and external rotation in kneeling , but posterior-stabilised design s were more posterior at maximal flexion when compared to cruciate retaining .
Modern  TKR prostheses are design ed to restore healthy kinematics including high flexion .
Kneeling is a dem and ing high-flexion activity .
There have been many studies of kneeling kinematics using a plethora of implant design s but no comprehensive comparisons .
Visualisation of contact patterns allows for quantification and comparison of knee kinematics .
The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether there are any differences in the kinematics of kneeling as a function of TKR design .