Patellar crepitus and clunk are tendofemoral-related complications predominantly associated with posterior-stabilizing (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs [1]. Contact between the quadriceps tendon and the femoral component can cause irritation, pain, and catching of soft-tissue within the intercondylar notch (ICN). While the incidence of tendofemoral-related pathologies has been documented for some primary TKA designs, literature describing revision TKA is sparse. Revision components require a larger boss resection to accommodate a constrained post-cam and stem/sleeve attachments, which elevates the entrance to the ICN, potentially increasing the risk of crepitus. The objective of this study was to evaluate tendofemoral contact in primary and revision TKA designs, including designs susceptible to crepitus, and newer designs which aim to address design features associated with crepitus. Six PS TKA designs were evaluated during deep knee bend using a computational model of the Kansas knee simulator (Figure 1). Prior work has demonstrated that tendofemoral contact predictions from this model can differentiate between TKA patients with patellar crepitus and matched controls [2]. Incidence of crepitus of up to 14% has been reported in Insall-Burstein® II and PFC® Sigma® designs [3]. These designs, in addition to PFC® Sigma® TC3 (revision component), were included in the analyses. Primary and revision components of newer generation designs (NexGen®, Attune® and Attune® Revision) were also included. Designs were evaluated in a patient model with normal Insall-Salvati ratio and a modified model with patellar tendon length reduced by two standard deviations (13mm) to assess worst-case patient anatomy.Introduction
Methods
Within total hip replacement, articulation of the femoral head near the rim of the acetabular liner creates undesirable conditions leading to a propensity for dislocation[1], increased contact stresses[2], increased load and torque imparted on the acetabular component[3], and increased wear[4]. Propensity for rim loading is affected by prosthesis placement, as well as the kinematics and loading of the patient. The present study investigates these effects. CT scans from an average-sized patientwere segmented for the hemipelvis and femur of interest. DePuy Synthes implant models were aligned in a neutral position in Hypermesh. The acetabular liner was assigned deformable solid material properties, and the remainder of the model was assigned rigid properties. Joint reaction forces and kinematics of hip flexion were taken from the public Orthoload database to represent ADLs [5]: Active flexion lying on a table, gait, bending to lift and move a load, and sit-stand. The pelvis was fully constrained, while three-degree-of-freedom (3-DOF) forces were applied to the femur. Hip flexion was kinematically-prescribed while internal-external (I-E) and adduction-abduction (Ad-Ab) DOFs were constrained. Angles of acetabular implant positioning were based on published data by Rathod [6]. Femoral implant position was chosen based on cadaveric in vitro DePuy Synthes measurements of variation in femoral prosthesis position reported previously [7]. Acetabular and Femoral alignment angles were represented for nominal position, as well as positioning + 1σ and + 2σ from the mean in both anteversion and inclination for acetabular components, and both Varus/Valgus and Flexion (angle in sagittal plane) for the femoral component. The analyses were automated within Matlab to execute 68 finite element analyses in Abaqus Explicit and structured in a DOE style analysis with Cup inclination, Cup version, Stem Flexion, and Stem Varus/Valgus, and Activity as variables of interest (64 runs + 4 centerpoints = 68 analyses). From a previous study it was known that acetabular component inclination had the greatest effect on contact pressure location [7], so all data were analyzed relative to inclination, allowing other positioning variables to be represented as variation per inclination position. Results are presented as a percentage, with 0% being pole loading and 100% being rim loading, to normalize for head diameter.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
