Abstract
Introduction
Recently, tibial insert design of cruciate-substituting (CS) polyethylene insert is employed. However, in vivo kinematics of using CS polyethylene insert is still unclear. In this study, it is hypothesized that CS polyethylene insert leads to stability of femolo-tibial joint as well as posterior-stabilized polyethylene insert, even if posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is sacrificed after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is an investigation of in vivo kinematics of three different tibial insert designs using computer assisted navigation system intra-operatively in TKA.
Materials and Methods
Sixty-four consecutive patients who had knees of osteoarthritis with varus deformity were investigated in this study. All TKAs (Triathlon, Stryker, New Jersey, USA) were performed using computer assisted navigation system. During surgery, three different designs of polyethylene tibial trial inserts (PS, CS, and cruciate-retaining (CR) polyethylene insert) were inserted respectively after implantation of femoral and tibial components. The kinematic parameters of the soft-tissue balance were obtained by interpreting kinematics curve, which display bicompartmental gaps throughout the range of motion (ROM) after implantation of each trial insert (Figure. 1). During record of kinematics, the surgeon gently lifted the experimental thigh three times, flexing the hip and knee. Deviation of these three values in each ROM was calculated in each tibial insert in each patient for descriptive analysis.
Results
Regarding to values of compartmental gaps, there are no significance between three inserts in both medial and lateral compartments (Figure 2a, b).
On medial compartmental gaps, the values of deviations were significantly higher in CR insert than both of PS and CS insert in ROM of over 45 degrees in extension (Fig 3a). In addition, concerning lateral compartmental gaps, the values of deviations were significantly higher in CS insert than both PS and CS insert in all ROM (Fig 3b). Furthermore, there was no significance between PS and CS insert in overall range of motion in both medial and lateral compartmental gaps (Fig 3a, b).
Discussion
These results demonstrated that CS polyethylene insert has a stability of femoro-tibial joint nearly as well as PS polyethylene insert. While PS insert may leads to surface damage on open box and has necessity of cutting more bone of femur, some problems involving management of PCL are enumerated in CR inserts. The main design feature of Triathlon CS insert is single radius and rotary arc, in addition, the posterior lip is same as that of Triathlon CR, which can be the factor to avoid paradoxical anterior movement and to permit internal and external rotation between femoral and tibial component. Due to the design features and benefits, there is a high possibility that CS insert can lead same ROM as PS insert, although PS design can produce more ROM than the other type of insert type. Based on these backgrounds, it is suggested that CS insert may have an additional choice in TKA with some advantages especially in concerning of high activity patients like middle aged patients.
