» Articles » PMID: 15043113

In Vivo Kinematics for Fixed and Mobile-bearing Posterior Stabilized Knee Prostheses

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2004 Mar 27
PMID 15043113
Citations 34
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This is the first in vivo kinematic study to compare mobile-bearing with fixed-bearing prostheses in patients who had total knee arthroplasties. Femorotibial contact positions for 40 patients implanted with either a fixed-bearing or mobile-bearing prosthesis were analyzed using videofluoroscopy. Femorotibial contact paths were determined using a computer automated model-fitting technique. Nineteen of 20 patients in each group experienced posterior femoral rollback of their lateral condyles, with a mean of 3.6 and 3.7 mm for fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses respectively. Eighteen patients who had mobile-bearing prostheses and 17 patients with fixed-bearing knee prostheses experienced a normal pattern of axial rotation of 7.3 degrees and 4.1 degrees respectively. Eleven of 20 (55%) patients who had mobile-bearing prostheses implanted and eight of 20 (40%) patients who had fixed-bearing prostheses implanted did not experience femoral condylar lift-off. The remaining knees had condylar lift-off less than 2.4 mm for fixed-bearing prostheses and 1.7 mm for mobile-bearing prostheses, respectively. Patients who had mobile-bearing prostheses implanted experienced greater axial rotation and less condylar lift-off than patients who had fixed-bearing prostheses implanted. Both cruciate ligaments are sacrificed for the mobile and fixed-bearing total knee replacements. The results from the current study showed that, in both groups, the majority of patients experienced kinematics similar to those of a normal knee. However, the extent of lateral femoral condyle posterior rollback and the extent of axial rotation were less.

Citing Articles

Comprehensive evaluation of risk factors for aseptic loosening in cemented total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yao K, Chen Y J Exp Orthop. 2024; 11(3):e12095.

PMID: 39035847 PMC: 11260281. DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.12095.


Wider translations and rotations in posterior-stabilised mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty compared to fixed-bearing both implanted with mechanical alignment: a dynamic RSA study.

Zinno R, Alesi D, Di Paolo S, Pizza N, Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli G Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023; 31(11):4969-4976.

PMID: 37615718 PMC: 10598183. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-023-07541-6.


Application strategy of finite element analysis in artificial knee arthroplasty.

Zhang Z, Qi Y, Wei B, Bao H, Xu Y Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11:1127289.

PMID: 37265991 PMC: 10230366. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1127289.


3D-printed patient-specific instrumentation decreases the variability of patellar height in total knee arthroplasty.

Wang J, Wang X, Sun B, Yuan L, Zhang K, Yang B Front Surg. 2023; 9:954517.

PMID: 36704513 PMC: 9871753. DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.954517.


Biomechanical analysis of different levels of constraint in TKA during daily activities.

Castellarin G, Bori E, Rapallo L, Pianigiani S, Innocenti B Arthroplasty. 2023; 5(1):3.

PMID: 36597168 PMC: 9811790. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-022-00157-0.