Surgeons performing a total knee replacement (TKR) have two techniques to assist them achieve proper bone resections and ligament tension – gap balancing (GB) and measured resection (MR). GB relies on balancing ligaments prior to bony resections, whereas bony resections are made based on anatomical landmarks in MR. Many studies have been done to compare the implant migration and kinematics between the two techniques, but the results have been varied. However, these studies have not been done on modern anatomically designed prostheses using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Anatomical designs attempt to mimic the normal knee joint structure to return more natural kinematics to the joint, with emphasis on eliminating both paradoxical anterior motion and reduced posterior femoral rollback. Given the major design differences between anatomical and non-anatomical prostheses, it is important to investigate whether one surgical technique may have advantages another. We hypothesize that there would be no difference between GB and MR techniques in implant migration, but that GB might provide better knee kinematics. Patients were recruited to receive an anatomically designed prosthesis and randomized to groups where the GB or MR technique is used. For all patients in the study, RSA images were acquired at a 2 week baseline, as well as at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-operatively. These images were used to collect the maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial and femoral implant components relative to the bone using a model-based RSA software. A series of RSA images were also acquired at 3-months post-operatively at different knee flexion angles, ranging in 20° increments from 0° to 100°. Model-based RSA software was used to obtain the 3D positions and orientations of the femoral and tibial components, which were used to obtain the anterior-posterior (AP) contact locations for each condyle.Introduction
Methods
