Abstract
Summary Statement
A large proportion of knee arthroplasty patients are dissatisfied with their replacement. Significant differences exist between preoperative, postoperative and normal kinematics. A better understanding of the inter-relationships between kinematics, shape and prosthesis placement could lead to improved quality of life.
Introduction
Knee kinematics are altered by total knee arthroplasty (TKA) both intentionally and unintentionally. Knowledge of how and why kinematics change may improve patient outcome and satisfaction through improved implant design, implant placement or rehabilitation. Comparing preoperative to postoperative kinematics and shape of the natural and replaced joint will allow an investigation of the inter-relationships between knee shape, prosthesis placement, knee kinematics and quality of life.
Patients & Methods
Using a sequential-biplanar radiographic protocol that allowed imaging the preoperative and postoperative patellofemoral (PF) and tibiofemoral (TF) joints under weightbearing throughout the range of motion, we imaged and compared the 6 degree-of-freedom PF and TF kinematics of 9 pre-TKA subjects to those of 15 post-TKA subjects (Zimmer NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilised Gender Solutions (GS) components). Using a novel computed tomography (CT) protocol, we obtained the femoral, tibial and patellar knee shapes, plus component placement after TKA. The same 9 pre-TKA subjects have now been re-imaged a minimum of one year postoperatively (DePuy Sigma Mobile Bearing cruciate-sacrificing components) to determine their changes in knee geometry and kinematics; full analysis is in progress.
Results
Clear, statistically significant differences were seen between the kinematics of the pre-TKA and post-TKA groups. For the TF joint, the tibia was more posterior and inferior in the post-TKA group compared to the pre-TKA group (max 20 mm and 15 mm, respectively) (p<0.001). Subjects had neutral alignment in the post-TKA group compared to varus alignment (max 9°) in the pre-TKA group (p<0.001). For the PF joint, the patella was shifted more posteriorly and less laterally postoperatively and was tilted neutrally compared to laterally (p<0.001). Our preliminary analysis of the matched preop-postop subjects likewise shows a more posterior and inferior tibia and neutral versus valgus alignment. Greater tibial rotations were seen postoperatively due to the mobile bearing. The patella was more posterior and less lateral postoperatively, as seen with the two groups.
Discussion/Conclusion
The kinematic differences seen are likely due to a combination of surgical, implant and patient factors. Both groups showed differences from normal kinematics, based on previous studies in the literature. In the future, by comparing the preoperative and postoperative kinematics, shape and quality of life for the same subjects (i.e. the 9 pre-TKA subjects in this study), and analyzing the interrelationships amongst these, we aim to determine if a different implant shape or different component positioning could create more normal kinematics, resulting in a better clinical outcome.
