The Effect of Geometric Variations in Posterior-stabilized Knee Designs on Motion Characteristics Measured in a Knee Loading Machine

BackgroundIn different posterior-stabilized (PS) total knees, there are considerable variations in condylar surface radii and cam-post geometry. To what extent these variations affect kinematics is not known. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined ideal kinematics for a total knee.Questions/purposesThe purposes of this study were to determine (1) what the kinematic differences are caused by geometrical variations between PS total knee designs in use today; and (2) what design characteristics will produce kinematics that closely resemble that of the normal anatomic knee.MethodsFour current PS designs with different geometries and one experimental asymmetric PS design, with a relatively conforming medial side, were tested in a purpose-built machine. The machine applied combinations of compressive, shear, and torque forces at a sequence of flexion angles to represent a range of everyday activities, consistent with the ASTM standard test for measuring constraint. The femorotibial contact points, the neutral path of motion, and the AP and internal-external laxities were used as the kinematic indicators.ResultsThe PS designs showed major differences in motion characteristics among themselves and with motion data from anatomic knees determined in a previous study. Abnormalities in the current designs included symmetric mediolateral motion, susceptibility to excessive AP medial laxity, and reduced laxity in high flexion. The asymmetric-guided motion design alleviated some but not all of the abnormalities.ConclusionsCurrent PS designs showed kinematic abnormalities to a greater or lesser extent. An asymmetric design may provide a path to achieving a closer match to anatomic kinematics.Clinical RelevanceOne criterion for the evaluation of PS total knees is how closely the kinematics of the prosthesis resemble that of the anatomic knee, because this is likely to affect the quality of function.

[1]  Chang-Hung Huang,et al.  Influence of post-cam design of posterior stabilized knee prosthesis on tibiofemoral motion during high knee flexion. , 2011, Clinical biomechanics.

[2]  Peter S. Walker,et al.  Standard testing methods for mobile bearing knees , 2012 .

[3]  T. Johnson,et al.  Anterior tibial post impingement in a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty , 2005, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[4]  Todd Johnson,et al.  Can in vitro systems capture the characteristic differences between the flexion-extension kinematics of the healthy and TKA knee? , 2009, Medical engineering & physics.

[5]  Hani Haider,et al.  Chapter 26 – Tribological Assessment of UHMWPE in the Knee , 2009 .

[6]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Classification of Mobile-Bearing Knee Designs: Mobility and Constraint , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  Gokce Yildirim,et al.  Design features of total knees for achieving normal knee motion characteristics. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  S. Banks,et al.  Sagittal curvature of total knee replacements predicts in vivo kinematics. , 2007, Clinical biomechanics.

[9]  Mark Taylor,et al.  Verification of predicted knee replacement kinematics during simulated gait in the Kansas knee simulator. , 2010, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[10]  Mark Taylor,et al.  Development of a statistical model of knee kinetics for applications in pre-clinical testing. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[11]  Peter S. Walker,et al.  Effects of patient and surgical alignment variables on kinematics in TKR simulation under force-control , 2006 .

[12]  Peter S. Walker,et al.  Laboratory Evaluation Method for the Functional Performance of Total Knee Replacements , 2012 .

[13]  J. Pritchett Patients prefer a bicruciate-retaining or the medial pivot total knee prosthesis. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[14]  Frederick W Werner,et al.  In vitro response of the natural cadaver knee to the loading profiles specified in a standard for knee implant wear testing. , 2010, Journal of biomechanics.

[15]  Harry E Rubash,et al.  Knee kinematics with a high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis: an in vitro robotic experimental investigation. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  Clare K Fitzpatrick,et al.  The role of patient, surgical, and implant design variation in total knee replacement performance. , 2012, Journal of biomechanics.

[17]  G. Bergmann,et al.  ESB Clinical Biomechanics Award 2008: Complete data of total knee replacement loading for level walking and stair climbing measured in vivo with a follow-up of 6-10 months. , 2009, Clinical biomechanics.

[18]  P S Walker,et al.  Measurements of constraint of total knee replacement. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[19]  R. Benner,et al.  How Does TKA Kinematics Vary With Transverse Plane Alignment Changes in a Contemporary Implant? , 2012, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[20]  P. Walker,et al.  Preclinical evaluation method for total knees designed to restore normal knee mechanics. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  S. Kurtz UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook: Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement and Medical Devices , 2009 .

[22]  P. Walker,et al.  Reference axes for comparing the motion of knee replacements with the anatomic knee. , 2011, The Knee.

[23]  Gokce Yildirim,et al.  Total knees designed for normal kinematics evaluated in an up‐and‐down crouching machine , 2009, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[24]  Mohamed R Mahfouz,et al.  Multicenter Determination of In Vivo Kinematics After Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[25]  D. D’Lima,et al.  Quadriceps Moment Arm and Quadriceps Forces After Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2001, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[26]  Joel Bach,et al.  AN ABJS BEST PAPER: Difference Between the Epicondylar and Cylindrical Axis of the Knee , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[27]  Ryan Willing,et al.  Design optimization of a total knee replacement for improved constraint and flexion kinematics. , 2011, Journal of biomechanics.

[28]  Peter S. Walker,et al.  Inherent differences in the laxity and stability between the intact knee and total knee replacements , 1997 .

[29]  Johan Bellemans,et al.  The influence of muscle load on tibiofemoral knee kinematics , 2009, Journal of Orthopaedic Research.

[30]  M. Wimmer,et al.  Kinematic evaluation of cruciate-retaining total knee replacement patients during level walking: a comparison with the displacement-controlled ISO standard. , 2009, Journal of biomechanics.

[31]  Stephen J Piazza,et al.  Computational assessment of constraint in total knee replacement. , 2008, Journal of biomechanics.

[32]  Scott A Banks,et al.  A direct comparison of patient and force-controlled simulator total knee replacement kinematics. , 2007, Journal of biomechanics.

[33]  H. Rubash,et al.  Sensitivity of the knee joint kinematics calculation to selection of flexion axes. , 2004, Journal of biomechanics.