» Articles » PMID: 31123794

Anatomy-mimetic Design Preserves Natural Kinematics of Knee Joint in Patient-specific Mobile-bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2019 May 25
PMID 31123794
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate whether different tibial-femoral conformities for patient-specific mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) preserve natural knee kinematics, using computational simulations.

Methods: Different designs for patient-specific mobile-bearing UKAs were evaluated using finite element analysis. Three designs for the identical femoral component were considered: flat (non-conforming design), anatomy-mimetic, and conforming for the tibial insert.

Results: The conforming design for the patient-specific mobile-bearing UKAs exhibited a 1.2 mm and 0.7° decrease in the translation and rotation, respectively, in the swing phase compared with those of the natural knee. In addition, the femoral rollback and internal rotation were 2.6 mm and 1.2° lower, respectively, than those of the natural knee, for the conforming design under the deep-knee-bend condition. The flat design for the patient-specific mobile-bearing UKAs exhibited a 2.2 mm and 1.4° increase in the femoral rollback and rotation compared with the natural knee under the deep-knee-bend condition. The anatomy-mimetic patient-specific mobile-bearing UKAs best preserved the natural knee kinematics under the gait and deep-knee-bend loading conditions.

Conclusions: The kinematics of the loading conditions in patient-specific mobile-bearing UKAs was determined to closely resemble those of a native knee. In additional, by replacing the anatomy-mimetic design with a mobile-bearing, natural knee kinematics during gait and deep-knee-bend motions is preserved. These results confirm the importance of tibiofemoral conformity in preserving native knee kinematics in patient-specific mobile-bearing UKA.

Citing Articles

Mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty does not lead to better joint awareness compared to fixed bearing design: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Poursalehian M, Pakbaz Y, Mortazavi S J Exp Orthop. 2024; 11(4):e70110.

PMID: 39678021 PMC: 11646548. DOI: 10.1002/jeo2.70110.


Preserving coronal knee alignment of the knee (CPAK) in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty correlates with superior patient-reported outcomes.

Kim S, Yun K, Lee J, Lee M, Han H Knee Surg Relat Res. 2024; 36(1):1.

PMID: 38167246 PMC: 10763258. DOI: 10.1186/s43019-023-00204-3.


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.


Computational analysis of tibial slope adjustment with fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in ACL- and PCL-deficient models.

Kwon H, Lee J, Koh Y, Park K, Kang K Bone Joint Res. 2022; 11(7):494-502.

PMID: 35818859 PMC: 9350696. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.117.BJR-2022-0138.


[Research progress on finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in medial knee compartmental osteoarthritis].

Xiong H, Zeng Y, Si H, Wu Y, Shen B Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2021; 35(6):781-785.

PMID: 34142508 PMC: 8218186. DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202101028.


References
1.
Godest A, Beaugonin M, Haug E, Taylor M, Gregson P . Simulation of a knee joint replacement during a gait cycle using explicit finite element analysis. J Biomech. 2002; 35(2):267-75. DOI: 10.1016/s0021-9290(01)00179-8. View

2.
Smith T, Hing C, Davies L, Donell S . Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009; 95(8):599-605. DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.10.006. View

3.
Fitz W . Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with use of novel patient-specific resurfacing implants and personalized jigs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91 Suppl 1:69-76. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01448. View

4.
Hamilton T, Rizkalla J, Kontochristos L, Marks B, Mellon S, Dodd C . The Interaction of Caseload and Usage in Determining Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(10):3228-3237.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.063. View

5.
Liddle A, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray D . Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(6):793-801. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35155. View