Abstract
Introduction
Tibiofemoral constraint in patients with total knee replacements (TKR) is dependent on both implant geometry and the surrounding soft tissue structures. Choosing more highly constrained geometries can reduce the contribution of soft tissue necessary to maintain joint stability [1]. Often when knee revision surgeries are required, the soft tissue and bone are compromised leading to the use of more constrained implants to ensure knee stability [2]. The current study quantifies the differences in varus-valgus (VV) and internal-external (IE) constraint between two types of total knee revision systems: SIGMA® TC3© and ATTUNE® REVISION.
Methods
Nine cadaveric knees (7 male, age 64.0 ± 9.8 years, BMI 26.28 ± 4.92) were implanted with both fixed-bearing SIGMA TC3 and ATTUNE REVISION knee systems. Five knees received the TC3 implant first, while the remaining 4 received the ATTUNE implant first. The knees were mounted in an inverted position, and a six degree-of-freedom force-torque sensor (JR3, Woodland, CA) was rigidly secured to the distal tibia (Fig. 1). A series of manual manipulations applying IE and VV torques was performed through the flexion range [3]. Each specimen was then revised to the alternate revision system, and the manual manipulations were repeated. Joint loads were calculated, and tibiofemoral kinematics were described according to the Grood-Suntay definition [4]. VV and IE kinematics were calculated as a function of flexion angle, VV torque, and IE torque as has been described previously [3]. The knees were analysed at ±6 Nm VV and ±4 Nm IE, and the kinematics were normalized to the zero load path. A paired t-test (p < .05) was employed to identify significant differences between the kinematics of the two knee systems at 10º flexion increments.
Results
Less VV motion was observed in the ATTUNE REVISION system compared to the TC3 system reaching statistical significance in mid-flexion. (Fig. 2). No significant differences were observed in IE rotation between the two designs, except in full extension where the SIGMA TC3 provided increased constraint (Fig. 3).
Discussion
The ATTUNE REVISION System provided increased VV constraint compared to the TC3 design. The ATTUNE tibial post was more conforming to the femoral box throughout flexion, which contributed to the increased constraint. However, this increase was not concurrent with a reduction in IE rotational freedom as has been common with more constrained revision systems [5]. ATTUNE REVISION provides additional VV stability while retaining knee IE freedom and, therefore, may enable more natural knee kinematics for patients with MCL deficiency in need of a revision TKR. Future work will focus on how the increased levels of VV constraint affect weight-bearing knee kinematics in the presence of ligament deficiency.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by DePuy Synthes Joint Reconstruction, Warsaw, Indiana, a Johnson and Johnson Company.
For figures and references – please contact authors directly
