The decision to choose CR (cruciate retaining) insert or CS (condylar stabilized) insert during TKA remains a controversial issue. Triathlon CS type has a condylar stabilized insert with an increased anterior lip that can be used in cases where the PCL is sacrificed but a PS insert is not used. The difference of the knee kinematics remains unclear. This study measured knee kinematics of deep knee flexion under load in two insert designs using 2D/3D registration technique. Five fresh-frozen cadaver lower extremity specimens were surgically implanted with Triathlon CR components (Stryker Orthopedics, Mahwah, NJ). CR insert with retaining posterior cruciate ligament were measured firstly, and then CS insert after sacrificing posterior cruciate ligament were measured. Under fluoroscopic surveillance, the knees were mounted in a dynamic quadriceps-driven closed-kinetic chain knee simulator based on the Oxford knee rig design. The data of every 10° knee flexion between 0° and 140° were corrected. Femorotibial motion including tibial polyethylene insert were analyzed using 2D/3D registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design (CAD) models to reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated the knee flexion angle, femoral axial rotation, and anteroposterior translation of contact points.Background
Materials and methods
Various postoperative evaluations using fluoroscopy have reported in vivo knee flexion kinematics under weight bearing conditions. This method has been used to investigate which design features are more important for restoring normal knee function. The objective of this study is to evaluate the kinematics of a Low Contact Stress total knee arthroplasty (LCS TKA) in weight bearing deep knee flexion using 2D/3D registration technique. We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 6 knees (4 patients) implanted with the LCS meniscal bearing TKA (LCS Mobile-Bearing Knee System, Depuy, Warsaw, IN). Mean period between operation and surveillance was 170.7±14.2 months. Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient did a deep knee flexion under weight-bearing condition. Femorotibial motion was analyzed using 2D/3D registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design (CAD) models to reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated the knee flexion angle, femoral axial rotation, and antero-posterior translation of contact positions.Background
Patients and methods
Various postoperative evaluations using fluoroscopy have reported in vivo knee flexion kinematics under weight bearing conditions. This method has been used to investigate which design features are more important for restoring normal knee function. The objective of this study is to evaluate the kinematics of a Posterior-Stabilized TKA in weight bearing deep knee flexion using 2D/3D registration technique. We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 9 knees (9 patients) implanted with a Posterior Stabilized TKA (Triathlon PS, Stlyker Orthopedics, Mahwah, NJ). Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient did a deep knee flexion under weight-bearing condition. Femorotibial motion including tibial polyethylene insert were analyzed using 2D/3D registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design (CAD) models to reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated the knee flexion angle, femoral axial rotation, antero-posterior translation of contact points, and post-cam engagement were evaluated.Background
Patients and methods
Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee prostheses have been developed to achieve lower contact stress and higher conformity compared to fixed-bearing total knee prostheses. However, little is known about the in vivo kinematics of MB prostheses especially the motion of the polyethylene insert (PE) during various daily performances. And the in vivo motion of the PE during stairs up and down has not been clarified. The objective of this study is to clarify the in vivo motion of MB total knee arthroplasty including the PE during stairs up and down. We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 11 knees (10 patients) implanted with PFC-Sigma RP-F (DePuy). Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient did stairs up and down motion. And motion between each component was analyzed using two- to three-dimensional registration technique, which used computer-assisted design (CAD) models to reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components, and PE (implanted with four tantalum beads intra-operatively) from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated the range of motion between the femoral and tibial components during being grounded, axial rotation between the femoral component and PE, the femoral and tibial component, and the PE and tibial component during being grounded.Background
Patients and methods
Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee prostheses have been developed to achieve lower contact stress and higher conformity compared to fixed-bearing total knee prostheses. However, little is known about the in vivo kinematics of MB prostheses especially about the kinematics of polyethylene insert (PE). In vivo motion of PE during squatting still remains unclear. The objective of this study is to investigate the in vivo motion of MB total knee arthroplasty including PE during squatting. We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 11 knees (10 patients) implanted with Vanguard Rotationg Platform High Flex (Biomet(r)). Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient did a wight-bearing deep knee bending motion. Motion between each component was analyzed using two- to three-dimensional registration technique, which uses computer-assisted design (CAD) models to reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components, and PE (implanted with five tantalum beads intra-operatively) from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated the range of motion between the femoral and tibial components, axial rotation between the femoral component and PE, the femoral and tibial component, and the PE and tibial component, and AP translation of the nearest point between the femoral and tibial component and between the femoral component and PE.Background
Patients and methods
