Abstract
The use of smart trial components is now allowing a better assessment of soft tissue balancing at the time of total knee replacement surgery. A balanced knee can be defined as one that possesses symmetry, ie. equal and centered lateral and medial forces through the full range of flexion. There is still a need for a standard reproducible surgical test to quickly confirm optimized balancing at surgery with such devices. The Heel Push test is the established standard, by pushing the foot in a cephalad direction while supporting the thigh and keeping the leg stable in the vertical plane. A common variation of this test is the Thigh Pull test where the foot is actively assisted during the cephalad pull of the thigh through deep flexion. The test is an open chain test. The Thigh Pull test may be an improvement since the weight of the leg is alleviated and no supplemental compressive forces are introduced. The directional changes of the lower extremity are thus a result of ligamentous tension and balances. The purpose of this study is to compare the two tests using a standard testing methodology and observe the variation in kinetic parameters in a controlled biomechanical setting.
A custom l rig was developed, which independently controls all six degrees of freedom about the knee joint. In addition a commercial navigation system was used to derive instantaneous alignment values and flexion angles between the tibia and femur. The pelvis was fixed to the table and the foot was fitted onto a low friction carriage along a slide rail. The knee design used was cruciate retaining. The pressure mapping system was a wireless tibial trial that provided magnitude of load per compartment.
The study is a preliminary cadaveric study reporting the data from two. In this experiment the leg was then tested with the Heel Push and Thigh Pull tests after obtaining optimum soft tissue balance of the cadaveric specimen. From this standard neutral state a series of single surgical variables were introduced to mimic common intra-operative surgical corrections. This was achieved through custom tibial liner and angle shims.
The results defied theoretical anticipation. Though the total contact forces with heel push were generally higher than with thigh pull, the relative load distribution between compartments did not follow a trend (see Figure 1). Furthermore in deeper flexion the persistence of relatively high contact pressures would suggest that ligaments still generate intra-articular forces despite the much weaker gravitational effect. The clinical relevance lies in the asymmetry of the load distribution between medial and lateral compartment for the two methods tested. The load asymmetry as tested by the Thigh Pull test may correspond to an open chain in swing phase. This asymmetry would force some axial rotation and tibial femoral alignment deviation that can significantly affect the forces at the time of heel strike. The Heel Push test would be more representative of the compressive forces in a closed chain mode as seen during the stance phase of gait.
