The Effect of Geometric Variations in Posterior-stabilized Knee Designs on Motion Characteristics Measured in a Knee Loading Machine

Overview

Journal Clin Orthop Relat Res

Publisher Wolters Kluwer

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2013 Aug 7

PMID 23917990

Citations 6

Authors

Peter S Walker

Michael T Lowry

Anoop Kumar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In different posterior-stabilized (PS) total knees, there are considerable variations in condylar surface radii and cam-post geometry. To what extent these variations affect kinematics is not known. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined ideal kinematics for a total knee.

Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were to determine (1) what the kinematic differences are caused by geometrical variations between PS total knee designs in use today; and (2) what design characteristics will produce kinematics that closely resemble that of the normal anatomic knee.

Methods: Four current PS designs with different geometries and one experimental asymmetric PS design, with a relatively conforming medial side, were tested in a purpose-built machine. The machine applied combinations of compressive, shear, and torque forces at a sequence of flexion angles to represent a range of everyday activities, consistent with the ASTM standard test for measuring constraint. The femorotibial contact points, the neutral path of motion, and the AP and internal-external laxities were used as the kinematic indicators.

Results: The PS designs showed major differences in motion characteristics among themselves and with motion data from anatomic knees determined in a previous study. Abnormalities in the current designs included symmetric mediolateral motion, susceptibility to excessive AP medial laxity, and reduced laxity in high flexion. The asymmetric-guided motion design alleviated some but not all of the abnormalities.

Conclusions: Current PS designs showed kinematic abnormalities to a greater or lesser extent. An asymmetric design may provide a path to achieving a closer match to anatomic kinematics.

Clinical Relevance: One criterion for the evaluation of PS total knees is how closely the kinematics of the prosthesis resemble that of the anatomic knee, because this is likely to affect the quality of function.

Citing Articles

Prediction of medial knee contact force using multisource fusion recurrent neural network and transfer learning.

Zou J, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Jin Z Med Biol Eng Comput. 2024; 62(5):1333-1346.

PMID: 38182944 DOI: 10.1007/s11517-023-03011-w.

Optimal Design of Patient-Specific Total Knee Arthroplasty for Improvement in Wear Performance.

Koh Y, Jung K, Hong H, Kim K, Kang K J Clin Med. 2019; 8(11).

PMID: 31752389 PMC: 6912647. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8112023.

The biomechanical effect of tibiofemoral conformity design for patient-specific cruciate retainging total knee arthroplasty using computational simulation.

Koh Y, Park K, Kang K J Exp Orthop. 2019; 6(1):23.

PMID: 31161463 PMC: 6546798. DOI: 10.1186/s40634-019-0192-6.

Effect of geometric variations on tibiofemoral surface and post-cam design of normal knee kinematics restoration.

Koh Y, Nam J, Kang K J Exp Orthop. 2018; 5(1):53.

PMID: 30578465 PMC: 6303222. DOI: 10.1186/s40634-018-0167-z.

Motion type and knee articular conformity influenced mid-flexion stability of a single radius knee prosthesis.

Wang X, Song D, Dong X, Suguro T, Cheng C Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018; 27(5):1595-1603.

PMID: 30269171 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-018-5181-2.

References

Most E, Axe J, Rubash H, Li G . Sensitivity of the knee joint kinematics calculation to selection of flexion axes. J Biomech. 2004; 37(11):1743-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.01.025. View

Walker P, Sussman-Fort J, Yildirim G, Boyer J . Design features of total knees for achieving normal knee motion characteristics. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 24(3):475-83. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.11.002. View

Walker P, Heller Y, Cleary D, Yildirim G . Preclinical evaluation method for total knees designed to restore normal knee mechanics. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 26(1):152-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.11.017. View

Galloway F, Worsley P, Stokes M, Nair P, Taylor M . Development of a statistical model of knee kinetics for applications in pre-clinical testing. J Biomech. 2011; 45(1):191-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.09.009. View

Moran M, Bhimji S, Racanelli J, Piazza S . Computational assessment of constraint in total knee replacement. J Biomech. 2008; 41(9):2013-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.03.020. View

Ngai V, Wimmer M . Kinematic evaluation of cruciate-retaining total knee replacement patients during level walking: a comparison with the displacement-controlled ISO standard. J Biomech. 2009; 42(14):2363-8. PMC: 2757531. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.06.030. View

Fitzpatrick C, Clary C, Rullkoetter P . The role of patient, surgical, and implant design variation in total knee replacement performance. J Biomech. 2012; 45(12):2092-102. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.05.035. View

Li G, Papannagari R, Most E, Park S, Johnson T, Tanamal L . Anterior tibial post impingement in a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2005; 23(3):536-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.orthres.2004.09.005. View

Varadarajan K, Harry R, Johnson T, Li G . Can in vitro systems capture the characteristic differences between the flexion-extension kinematics of the healthy and TKA knee?. Med Eng Phys. 2009; 31(8):899-906. DOI: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2009.06.005. View

10.

Willing R, Kim I . Design optimization of a total knee replacement for improved constraint and flexion kinematics. J Biomech. 2011; 44(6):1014-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2011.02.009. View

11.

Eckhoff D, Hogan C, Dimatteo L, Robinson M, Bach J . Difference between the epicondylar and cylindrical axis of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 461:238-44. DOI: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e318112416b. View

12.

Heinlein B, Kutzner I, Graichen F, Bender A, Rohlmann A, Halder A . ESB Clinical Biomechanics Award 2008: Complete data of total knee replacement loading for level walking and stair climbing measured in vivo with a follow-up of 6-10 months. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2009; 24(4):315-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.01.011. View

13.

Sutton L, Werner F, Haider H, Hamblin T, Clabeaux J . In vitro response of the natural cadaver knee to the loading profiles specified in a standard for knee implant wear testing. J Biomech. 2010; 43(11):2203-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.03.042. View

14.

Mihalko W, Conner D, Benner R, Williams J . How does TKA kinematics vary with transverse plane alignment changes in a contemporary implant?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 470(1):186-92. PMC: 3237993. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2145-y. View

15.

Heim C, Postak P, Plaxton N, Greenwald A . Classification of mobile-bearing knee designs: mobility and constraint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83-A Suppl 2(Pt 1):32-7. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200100021-00008. View

16.

Pritchett J . Patients prefer a bicruciate-retaining or the medial pivot total knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 26(2):224-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.02.012. View

17.

Haider H, Walker P . Measurements of constraint of total knee replacement. J Biomech. 2004; 38(2):341-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.014. View

18.

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

19.

DesJardins J, Banks S, Benson L, Pace T, LaBerge M . A direct comparison of patient and force-controlled simulator total knee replacement kinematics. J Biomech. 2007; 40(15):3458-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.05.022. View

20.

Walker P, Heller Y, Yildirim G, Immerman I . Reference axes for comparing the motion of knee replacements with the anatomic knee. Knee. 2010; 18(5):312-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2010.07.005. View