Abstract
Background
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgical techniques attempt to achieve equal flexion and extension gaps to produce a well-balanced knee, but unexplainable unhappy patients persist. Mid-flexion instability is one proposed cause of unhappy patients. There are multiple techniques to achieve equal flexion and extension gaps, but their effects in mid-flexion are largely unknown.
Purpose of study
The purpose of the study is to determine the effects that changing femur implant size and/or adjusting the femur and tibia proximal -distal and femur anterior-posterior implant positions have on cruciate retaining (CR) TKA mid-flexion ligament balance when equal flexion and extension gaps are maintained.
Methods
A computational analysis was performed simulating knee flexion of two CR TKA designs (JOURNEY II CR and LEGION HFCR; Smith & Nephew) using previously validated software (LifeMOD/KneeSim; LifeModeler). Deviations from the ideal implant position were simulated by adjusting tibiofemoral proximal-distal position and femur anterior-posterior position and size (Table 1). Positioning the femur more proximal was accompanied by equal anterior femur and proximal tibia shifts to maintain equal flexion and extension gaps. The forces in ligaments connecting the femur and tibia, which included superficial and posterior MCL, LCL, popliteal-fibular ligament complex, iliotibial band, and anterior-lateral and posterior-medial PCL, were collected. Total tibiofemoral ligament load and PCL load for 15–75° knee flexion were analyzed versus proximal-distal implant position, implant size, implant design, and knee flexion using a MANOVA in Minitab 16 (Minitab).
Results
Total tibiofemoral ligament load was significantly reduced by a more proximal implant position (p<.001) (Figure 1) but was not affected by implant size (p>0.6). PCL load was not affected by implant proximal-distal position or size (p>0.9) (Figure 2). Therefore, the PCL did not contribute to changes in mid-flexion balance caused by proximal-distal implant position. Implant design and knee flexion significantly influenced total tibiofemoral ligament and PCL loads (p<.05), but the interactions with implant proximal-distal position and size were not significant (p>0.7) indicating that the effects of implant proximal-distal position applies across the studied implant designs and 15°–75° knee flexion range.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that a CR TKA can be well balanced at 0° and 90° knee flexion and be too tight or loose in mid-flexion. Since placement of implant was the variable studied, when the knee is too tight in mid-flexion, our recommendation to loosen the knee is to resect more distal and posterior femur, downsizing if necessary, and increase the tibial insert thickness. The opposite could be done to guard against the knee being too loose in mid-flexion. Finally, it is recommended to gauge balance in more than simply 0° and 90° to determine overall knee balance.
