header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_2 | Pages 118 - 118
2 Jan 2024
Stroobant L Verstraete M Onsem S Victor J Chevalier A
Full Access

Numerous papers present in-vivo knee kinematics data following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from fluoroscopic testing. Comparing data is challenging given the large number of factors that potentially affect the reported kinematics. This paper aims at understanding the effect of following three different factors: implant geometry, performed activity and analysis method.

A total of 30 patients who underwent TKA were included in this study. This group was subdivided in three equal groups: each group receiving a different type of posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis. During single-plane fluoroscopic analysis, each patient performed three activities: open chain flexion extension, closed chain squatting and chair-rising. The 2D fluoroscopic data were subsequently converted to 3D implant positions and used to evaluate the tibiofemoral contact points and landmark-based kinematic parameters.

Significantly different anteroposterior translations and internal-external rotations were observed between the considered implants. In the lateral compartment, these differences only appeared after post-cam engagement. Comparing the activities, a significant more posterior position was observed for both the medial and lateral compartment in the closed chain activities during mid-flexion. A strong and significant correlation was found between the contact-points and landmarks-based analyses method. However, large individual variations were also observed, yielding a difference of up to 25% in anteroposterior position between both methods.

In conclusion, all three evaluated factors significantly affect the obtained tibiofemoral kinematics. The individual implant design significantly affects the anteroposterior tibiofemoral position, internal-external rotation and timing of post-cam engagement. Both kinematics and post-cam engagement additionally depend on the activity investigated, with a more posterior position and associated higher patella lever arm for the closed chain activities. Attention should also be paid to the considered analysis method and associated kinematics definition: analyzing the tibiofemoral contact points potentially yields significantly different results compared to a landmark-based approach.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 4 | Pages 285 - 293
17 Apr 2023
Chevalier A Vermue H Pringels L Herregodts S Duquesne K Victor J Loccufier M

Aims

The goal was to evaluate tibiofemoral knee joint kinematics during stair descent, by simulating the full stair descent motion in vitro. The knee joint kinematics were evaluated for two types of knee implants: bi-cruciate retaining and bi-cruciate stabilized. It was hypothesized that the bi-cruciate retaining implant better approximates native kinematics.

Methods

The in vitro study included 20 specimens which were tested during a full stair descent with physiological muscle forces in a dynamic knee rig. Laxity envelopes were measured by applying external loading conditions in varus/valgus and internal/external direction.