Abstract
Computational modeling has been used to simulate the natural and prosthetic kinematic and kinetic function in an attempt to compare designs and/or predict a desired motion path from a design. The levels of soft tissue can range from basic ligaments (MCL, LCL, and ACL & PCL) to more complex models. The goal of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of the Posterior Cruciate ligament in a virtual model and its effects on the kinematic outcome in a commercially available and validated kinematics package (KneeSim, LifeModeler San Clemente, CA).
Methods:
KneeSIM is a musculoskeletal modeling environment that is built on the foundation of the ADAMS (MSC Software, Santa Ana CA), a rigid body dynamics solver to compute knee kinematics and forces during a deep knee bend. All parameters are customizable and can be altered by the user. Generic three dimensional models of cruciate retaining components of the femoral, tibial, and patellar are available with the software and were used to provide a common reference for the study. The following parameters were modified for each simulation to evaluate the sensitivity of the PCL in the model: 1) Model without PCL, 2) PCL with default properties, 3) PCL Shifted at femoral origin, 7 mm anterior, 7 mm inferior; tibial origin maintained; 4) PCL with increased stiffness properties (2x default), 5) position in the femur and tibia remained default position and 6) PCL with default properties and location, joint line shifted 4 mm superior. The standard output of tracking the flexion facet center (FFC) motion of the medial and lateral condyles was utilized (Figure 1).
Results:
Figure 2 and 3 displays the output of the six conditions tested above. Comparing the curves for the medial and lateral motion show different patterns with the lateral point having more posterior translation than the medial. After approximately 95° of flexion, all cases exhibit an anterior translation in the model. This motion was consistent for all test cases. The model showed no difference with motion either with or without the PCL and with changing the stiffness. Altering the location of the PCL on the femoral insertion had the greatest effect on motion, while shifting the joint line superior was second. The shift of the ligament insertion and changing of the joint line results in the ligament being more parallel to the tibial surface which provides resistance to anterior motion or posterior translation.
Discussion:
Although the model was able to discern differences, the inability to highlight variation in motion with and without the PCL suggests that the default parameters are not representative of an experimental or clinical setup. Although it is apparent that KneeSim can be used for comparative assessments between designs, simulations should be designed so as to provide similar boundary conditions. Publications (Colwell et al 2011) did successfully use KneeSim to provide a comparative assessment of CR components; however, only after the default model was altered to match the outcome of the experimental rig. Further analysis of the complexities in soft tissue modeling is warranted.
