Abstract
Background: Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee prostheses have been developed to achieve lower contact stress and higher conformity than fixed-bearing total knee prostheses. However, little is known about the in vivo kinematics of MB prostheses especially about the motion of polyethylene insert (PE). And the in vivo motion of PE during deep knee bending under weight-bearing conditions has not been clarified. The objective of this study is to clarify the in vivo motion of MB total knee arthroplasty including PE during weight-bearing deep knee bend motion.
Patients and methods: We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 9 knees (9 patients) implanted with PFC-Sigma RPF (DePuy). Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient did a wight-bearing deep knee bending motion. And motion between each component was analyzed using two- to three-dimensional registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design (CAD) models to reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components, and PE (implanted with four tantalum beads intra-operatively) from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated the range of motion between the femoral and tibial components, axial rotation between the femoral component and PE, the femoral and tibial component, and the PE and tibial component, and AP translation of the nearest point between the femoral and tibial component and between the femoral component and PE.
Results: The mean range of hyper-extension was 2.1° and the mean range of flexion of 121.2°. The femoral component relative to the tibial component demonstrated 13.0° external rotation for 0–120 degrees flexion. The tibial component rotated 12.1° externally relative to the PE and the femoral component minimally rotated relative to the PE within ± 5 degrees. In upright standing position, the femoral component already rotated externally relative to the tibial component in 7.8°, and the PE also rotated on average 8.2° externally on the tibial tray. Typically the femoral component relative to the tibial component exhibited a central pivot pattern external rotation from extension to 80° knee flexion. Subsequently from 80 to 120°, bilateral condyles moved backward. In a similar fashion, the femoral component relative to the PE exhibited a central pivot pattern external rotation from extension to 70° knee flexion and subsequently bicondylar rollback from 70 to 120° knee flexion.
Discussion and conclusion: In this study, we evaluated the in vivo motion of PE during deep knee bend motion under weight-bearing condition. About this total knee prosthesis, the mobile-bearing mechanism which advantages over fixed-bearing prosthesis to reduce contact stress and keep high comformity might work well, and arc of range of motion was maintained. Furthermore, in upright standing position, the femoral component and tibial component already rotated externally relative to the PE in almost equal measure. This indicated that, self-aligning mechanism, another characteristic of the MB prosthesis might also work well.
Correspondence should be addressed to ISTA Secretariat, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. Tel: 1-916-454-9884, Fax: 1-916-454-9882, Email: ista@pacbell.net
