Abstract
Introduction An approximation of normal knee kinematics after knee replacement may improve knee function and implant fixation and reduce wear of the prosthesis. This study describes the knee joint kinematics after unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) in general, and compares the Miller-Glante (MG, fixed bearing) and Oxford (mobile bearing) implants in particular.
Methods Twenty-two knees in 17 patients (11 males, six females, mean age of 69.7 yrars) were randomized into MG (11 knees) or Oxford (11 knees). No clinical complications or signs of loosening were observed. At the one year follow-up, RSA (Radiosterometry) x-rays were taken by using two x-ray tubes positioned at knee level and exposing the knee simultaneously from the side. Four pairs of weight bearing x-ray were obtained at zero degrees, 30°, 60°, 90° of knee flexion, with zero as reference position. Tibial rotation, rollback, translation of tibia-femur contact point, and the bearing movement were analyzed using UmRSA software.
Results With the MG implant, the tibia internally rotated 3.0°, 3.0°, and 4.2° respectively at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion, while with the Oxford implant, the tibia internally rotated 4.3°, 7.6°, and 9.5° respectively at 30°, 60°, and 90°. No significant difference was found between the two groups (P> 0.05, Repeated-measures ANOVA). The medial femoral condyle moved backward (1.8 and 1.5 mm respectively in MG and Oxford) from zero degrees to 30° of flexion. At 60°, it moved anteriorly in both knees, in MG to 0.9 mm anteriorly and in Oxford to 0.6 mm posteriorly to the reference position. At 90° the condyle moved 4.2 mm (MG) and 0.7 mm (Oxford) anteriorly to the reference position. No significant difference between the groups (P> 0.05). The femur-tibia contact point in MG moved anteriorly 2.8, 5.1, and 3.9 mm, respectively at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion, whereas the contact point in Oxford moved posteriorly 2.6, 1.8, 2.4 mm respectively at 30°, 60°, and 90°. A significant difference was found between the groups (P=0.003). The bearing in the Oxford implant moved backward of 2.2, 2.0, and 0.9 mm respectively at 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion.
Conclusions The in-vivo weight bearing 3D knee kinematics after UKA with fixed or mobile bearing was described. In MG the medial femoral condyle moved forward with knee flexion, whereas in Oxford it moved backward together with the bearing, which is closer to normal knee kinematics.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Jerzy Sikorski. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Australian Orthopaedic Association, Ground Floor, William Bland Centre, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia.
None of the authors have received any payment or consideration from any source for the conduct of this study.
