Abstract
Introduction
The low-contact stress (LCS) knee prosthesis is a mobile-bearing design with modifications to the tibial component that allow for meniscal-bearing (MB) or rotating-platform (RP). The MB design had nonconstrained anteroposterior and rotational movement, and the RP design has only nonconstrained rotational movement. The anterior soft tissues, including patellar tendon (PT), prevent anterior dislocation of the MB. The PT may consistently be exposed to overstressing. Therefore, we hypothesized that the PT thickness and width in MB prosthesis revealed more morphological changes than those of RP prosthesis due to degeneration of the PT induced by much mechanical stress of the MB movement. To confirm this hypothesis, we analyze the PT thickness and width induced by mobile-bearing inserts.
Objectives
Sixty LCS prostheses in 30 patients were analyzed. The average follow-up time was 61 months. MB prosthesis was used on one side of the knee and RP prosthesis was used on the contralateral side of the knee. All patients were chosen from group with no clinical complication, and all had achieved passive full extension and at least 90°of flexion. The average Hospital for Special Surgery Score was 94.6 ± 2.7.
Methods
We measured the thickness and width of PT at joint line level, which were confirmed by sagittal section using ultrasound in knee extension between MB and RP design prosthesis.
Results
The mean thickness of PT was 4.7 mm (1.2) with MB and 4.7 mm (1.0) with RP design prosthesis. The mean width of PT was 30.6 mm (3.2) with MB and 31.3 mm (3.5) with RP design prosthesis. No significant differences were found between both groups.
Conclusion
The current results showed that the PT thickness and width in MB prosthesis did not reveal more morphological changes than those of RP prosthesis due to degeneration of the PT induced by much mechanical stress of the MB movement. The possible reasons are the following: (1) We did not remove infra-patellar fat pad, which might play shock absorber of mechanical stress from MB, and prevent from significant degeneration of PT, (2) MB inserts did not stimulate the middle of the PT directly, unlike LCS A/P-Glide inserts, and might come into contact with the both ends of the PT and (3) MB inserts did not move so as to cause degeneration in the PT.
