Abstract
Total knee replacements (TKR) have been the main choice of treatment for alleviating pain and restoring physical function in advanced degenerative osteoarthritis of the knee. Recently, there has been a rising interest in minimally invasive surgery TKR (MIS-TKR). However, accurate restoration of the knee axis presents a great challenge. Patient-specific-instrumented TKR (PSI-TKR) was thus developed to address the issue. However, the efficacy of this new approach has yet to be determined. The purpose of the current study was thus to measure and compare the 3D kinematics of the MIS-TKR and PSI-TKR in vivo during sit-to-stand using a 3D fluoroscopy technology.
Five patients each with MIS-TKR and PSI-TKR participated in the current study with informed written consent. Each subject performed quiet standing to define their own neutral positions and then sit-to-stand while under the surveillance of a bi-planar fluoroscopy system (ALLURA XPER FD, Philips). For the determination of the 3D TKR kinematics, the computer-aided design (CAD) model of the TKR for each subject was obtained from the manufacturer including femoral and tibial components and the plastic insert. At each image frame, the CAD model was registered to the fluoroscopy image via a validated 2D-to-3D registration method. The CAD model of each prosthesis component was embedded with a coordinate system with the origin at the mid-point of the femoral epicondyles, the z-axis directed to the right, the y-axis directed superiorly, and the x-axis directed anteriorly. From the accurately registered poses of the femoral and tibial components, the angles of the TKR were obtained following a z-x-y cardanic rotation sequence, corresponding to flexion/extension, adduction/abduction and internal/external rotation.
During sit-to-stand the patterns and magnitudes of the translations were similar between the MIS-TKR and PSI-TKR groups, with posterior translations ranging from 10–20 mm and proximal translations from 29–31mm. Differences in mediolateral translations existed between the groups but the magnitudes were too small to be clinically significant. For angular kinematics, both groups showed close-to-zero abduction/adduction, but the PSI-TKR group rotated externally from an internally rotated position (10° of internal rotation) to the neutral position, while the MIS-TKR group maintained at an externally rotated position of less than 5° during the movement.
During sit-to-stand both groups showed similar patterns and magnitudes in the translations but significant differences in the angular kinematics existed between the groups. While the MIS-TKR group maintained at an externally rotated position during the movement, the PSI-TKR group showed external rotations during knee extension, a pattern similar to the screw home mechanism in a normal knee, which may be related to more accurate restoration of the knee axis in the PSI-TKR group. A close-to-normal angular motion may be beneficial for maintaining a normal articular contact pattern, which is helpful for the endurance of the TKR. The current study was the first attempt to quantify the kinematic differences between PSI and non-PSI MIS. Further studies to include more subjects will be needed to confirm the current findings. More detailed analysis of the contact patterns is also needed.
