Abstract
Introduction
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) currently experiences increased popularity. It is usually assumed that UKA shows kinematic features closer to the natural knee than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Especially in younger patients more natural knee function and faster recovery have helped to increase the popularity of UKA. Another leading reason for the popularity of UKA is the ability to preserve the remaining healthy tissues in the knee, which is not always possible in TKA. Many biomechanical questions remain, however, with respect to this type of replacement.
25% of knees with medial compartment osteoarthritis also have a deficient anterior cruciate ligament [1]. In current clinical practice, medial UKA would be contraindicated in these patients. Our hypothesis is that kinematics after UKA in combination with ACL reconstruction should allow to restore joint function close to the native knee joint. This is clinically relevant, because functional benefits for medial UKA should especially be attractive to the young and active patient.
Materials and Methods
Six fresh frozen full leg cadaver specimens were prepared to be mounted in a kinematic rig (Figure 1) with six degrees of freedom for the knee joint. Three motion patterns were applied: passive flexion-extension, open chain extension, and squatting. These motion patterns were performed in four situations for each specimen: with the native knee; after implantation of a medial UKA (Figure 2); next after cutting the ACL and finally after reconstruction of the ACL. During the loaded motions, quadriceps and hamstrings muscle forces were applied. Infrared cameras continuously recorded the trajectories of marker frames rigidly attached to femur, tibia and patella. Prior computer tomography allowed identification of coordinate frames of the bones and calculations of anatomical rotations and translations. Strains in the collateral ligaments were calculated from insertion site distances.
Results
Knee kinematics and collateral ligament strains were quite close to the native situation after both UKA and ACL reconstruction for all motor tasks. Nevertheless, some statistically significant differences were detected, which may be relevant clinically and biomechanically. In general, insertion of a UKA led to a knee joint which was somewhat less adducted (Figure 3), with a medial femoral condyle located slightly higher, confirming previously published findings [2]. These effects were slightly reduced both after cutting as well as after reconstructing the ACL. The joint became somewhat less stable in the AP direction after insertion of a UKA and this instability persisted not only after cutting but even after reconstructing the ACL.
