Anteroposterior and Rotational Stability in Fixed and Mobile Bearing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty: a Cadaveric Study Using the Robotic Force Sensor System

Overview

Journal Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2012 Aug 8

PMID 22868351

Citations 17

Authors

Roland Becker

Christian Mauer

Christian Starke

Mathias Brosz

Thore Zantop

Christoph H Lohmann

Martin Schulze

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Different bearing designs in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) have been developed in order to influence the rate of polyethylene wear. Increased anteroposterior translation and rotation after UKA has been hypothesized due to changes in joint surface geometry. The mobile bearing design was expected to show increased anteroposterior translation compared to the fixed bearing and biconcave bearing design.

Methods: Six human cadaver knees were used for the tests. Anteroposterior and rotational knee stability was analysed in 0°, 30°, 60°, 90° and 120° of knee flexion using a robotic testing system (KR 125, KUKA Robots Augsburg, Germany). Three forces and moments were measured in a Cartesian coordinate system with a resolution of 1.0 N and 0.1 Nm.

Results: There was no difference between the native knees and the knees after UKA in AP translation and rotation in all knee flexion angles. The factor knee flexion angle had a significant impact on the anterior translation when the type of bearing was neglected (p ≤ 0.015).

Conclusion: This study shows that the natural knee stability in AP translation and rotation can be preserved in UKA. The preserved knee stability in different planes after UKA underlines the advantage of UKA when surgery is required in osteoarthritic changes of the medial compartment.

Citing Articles

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties: does the type of tibial component selected influence implant survival?.

Montilla F, Payo-Ollero J, Serrano-Toledano D, Del Rio-Arteaga M, Ribera J, Muela R Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023; 144(1):347-355.

PMID: 37743356 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-023-05055-x.

Intraoperative sensor technology quantifies inter-prosthesis pressure for predicting lower limb alignment after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Ge J, Sun X, Liu C, Zhang Q, Wang B, Guo W Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023; 11:1210713.

PMID: 37622001 PMC: 10445756. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1210713.

Maritan G, Franceschi G, Nardacchione R, Furlan E, Mariani I, Ursino N Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022; 31(3):1063-1071.

PMID: 36374325 PMC: 9958141. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-022-07218-6.

A Morphometric Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Can Reproduce Normal Knee Kinematics. An In Vitro Robotic Evaluation.

Bandi M, Benazzo F, Batailler C, Blatter I, Siggelkow E, Parratte S Arthroplast Today. 2022; 16:151-157.

PMID: 35769767 PMC: 9234006. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.02.023.

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review.

Liu P, Lu F, Liu G, Mu X, Sun Y, Zhang Q Arthroplasty. 2022; 3(1):15.

PMID: 35236463 PMC: 8796542. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-021-00071-x.

References

Lyons M, MacDonald S, Somerville L, Naudie D, McCalden R . Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 470(1):84-90. PMC: 3237994. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2144-z. View

Casino D, Martelli S, Zaffagnini S, Lopomo N, Iacono F, Bignozzi S . Knee stability before and after total and unicondylar knee replacement: in vivo kinematic evaluation utilizing navigation. J Orthop Res. 2008; 27(2):202-7. DOI: 10.1002/jor.20746. View

Price A, Rees J, Beard D, Gill R, Dodd C, Murray D . Sagittal plane kinematics of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10 years: a comparative in vivo fluoroscopic analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(5):590-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2003.12.082. View

Harner C, Mauro C, Lesniak B, Romanowski J . Biomechanical consequences of a tear of the posterior root of the medial meniscus. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91 Suppl 2:257-70. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00500. View

Machner A, Pap G, Awiszus F . Evaluation of quadriceps strength and voluntary activation after unicompartmental arthroplasty for medial osteoarthritis of the knee. J Orthop Res. 2002; 20(1):108-11. DOI: 10.1016/S0736-0266(01)00068-7. View

Allen C, Wong E, Livesay G, Sakane M, Fu F, Woo S . Importance of the medial meniscus in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. J Orthop Res. 2000; 18(1):109-15. DOI: 10.1002/jor.1100180116. View

Freeman M, Pinskerova V . The movement of the normal tibio-femoral joint. J Biomech. 2004; 38(2):197-208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.006. View

Campbell D, Johnson L, West S . Multiparameter quantitative computer-assisted tomography assessment of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. ANZ J Surg. 2006; 76(9):782-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2006.03867.x. View

Heinert G, Kendoff D, Preiss S, Gehrke T, Sussmann P . Patellofemoral kinematics in mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing posterior stabilised total knee replacements: a cadaveric study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010; 19(6):967-72. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-010-1320-0. View

10.

Levy I, Torzilli P, Gould J, Warren R . The effect of lateral meniscectomy on motion of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989; 71(3):401-6. View

11.

Robinson B, Rees J, Price A, Beard D, Murray D, McLardy Smith P . Dislocation of the bearing of the Oxford lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty. A radiological assessment. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002; 84(5):653-7. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.84b5.12950. View

12.

Paletta Jr G, Manning T, Snell E, Parker R, Bergfeld J . The effect of allograft meniscal replacement on intraarticular contact area and pressures in the human knee. A biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med. 1997; 25(5):692-8. DOI: 10.1177/036354659702500519. View

13.

Kort N, van Raay J, Cheung J, Jolink C, Deutman R . Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007; 15(11):1331-4. PMC: 2042026. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-007-0397-6. View

14.

Goodfellow J, OConnor J . Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986; (205):21-42. View

15.

Weston-Simons J, Pandit H, Gill H, Jackson W, Price A, Dodd C . The management of mobile bearing dislocation in the Oxford lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19(12):2023-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-011-1446-8. View

16.

Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman M . Tibiofemoral movement 1: the shapes and relative movements of the femur and tibia in the unloaded cadaver knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000; 82(8):1189-95. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.82b8.10717. View

17.

Bartley R, Stulberg S, Robb 3rd W, SWEENEY H . Polyethylene wear in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994; (299):18-24. View

18.

Li G, DeFrate L, Park S, Gill T, Rubash H . In vivo articular cartilage contact kinematics of the knee: an investigation using dual-orthogonal fluoroscopy and magnetic resonance image-based computer models. Am J Sports Med. 2004; 33(1):102-7. DOI: 10.1177/0363546504265577. View

19.

Collier M, Engh Jr C, McAuley J, Engh G . Factors associated with the loss of thickness of polyethylene tibial bearings after knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(6):1306-14. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00667. View

20.

Victor J, Labey L, Wong P, Innocenti B, Bellemans J . The influence of muscle load on tibiofemoral knee kinematics. J Orthop Res. 2009; 28(4):419-28. DOI: 10.1002/jor.21019. View