Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 8, Issue 5 | Pages 207 - 215
1 May 2019
Key S Scott G Stammers JG Freeman MAR Pinskerova V Field RE Skinner J Banks SA

Objectives

The medially spherical GMK Sphere (Medacta International AG, Castel San Pietro, Switzerland) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was previously shown to accommodate lateral rollback while pivoting around a stable medial compartment, aiming to replicate native knee kinematics in which some coronal laxity, especially laterally, is also present. We assess coronal plane kinematics of the GMK Sphere and explore the occurrence and pattern of articular separation during static and dynamic activities.

Methods

Using pulsed fluoroscopy and image matching, the coronal kinematics and articular surface separation of 16 well-functioning TKAs were studied during weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing, static, and dynamic activities. The closest distances between the modelled articular surfaces were examined with respect to knee position, and proportions of joint poses exhibiting separation were computed.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 5, Issue 3 | Pages 80 - 86
1 Mar 2016
Scott G Imam MA Eifert A Freeman MAR Pinskerova V Field RE Skinner J Banks SA

Objectives

Throughout the 20th Century, it has been postulated that the knee moves on the basis of a four-bar link mechanism composed of the cruciate ligaments, the femur and the tibia. As a consequence, the femur has been thought to roll back with flexion, and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses have been designed on this basis. Recent work, however, has proposed that at a position of between 0° and 120° the medial femoral condyle does not move anteroposteriorly whereas the lateral femoral condyle tends, but is not obliged, to roll back – a combination of movements which equates to tibial internal/ femoral external rotation with flexion. The aim of this paper was to assess if the articular geometry of the GMK Sphere TKA could recreate the natural knee movements in situ/in vivo.

Methods

The pattern of knee movement was studied in 15 patients (six male: nine female; one male with bilateral TKAs) with 16 GMK Sphere implants, at a mean age of 66 years (53 to 76) with a mean BMI of 30 kg/m2 (20 to 35). The motions of all 16 knees were observed using pulsed fluoroscopy during a number of weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing static and dynamic activities.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 88-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1016 - 1021
1 Aug 2006
Delport HP Banks SA De Schepper J Bellemans J

Mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements have been developed as an alternative to the standard fixed- and mobile-bearing designs. However, little is known about the in vivo kinematics of this new group of implants. We investigated 31 patients who had undergone a total knee replacement with a similar prosthetic design but with three different options: fixed-bearing posterior cruciate ligament-retaining, fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised. To do this we used a three-dimensional to two-dimensional model registration technique. Both the fixed- and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised configurations used the same femoral component. We found that fixed-bearing posterior stabilised and mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrated similar kinematic patterns, with consistent femoral roll-back during flexion. Mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrated greater and more natural internal rotation of the tibia during flexion than fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. Such rotation occurred at the interface between the insert and tibial tray for mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. However, for fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs, rotation occurred at the proximal surface of the bearing. Posterior cruciate ligament-retaining knee replacements demonstrated paradoxical sliding forward of the femur.

We conclude that mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements reproduce internal rotation of the tibia more closely during flexion than fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised designs. Furthermore, mobile-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements demonstrate a unidirectional movement which occurs at the upper and lower sides of the mobile insert. The femur moves in an anteroposterior direction on the upper surface of the insert, whereas the movement at the lower surface is pure rotation. Such unidirectional movement may lead to less wear when compared with the multidirectional movement seen in fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised knee replacements, and should be associated with more evenly applied cam-post stresses.