Does Component Alignment Affect Patient Reported Outcomes following Bicruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty? An In Vivo Three-Dimensional Analysis

Abstract

This is an experimental study. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retaining bicruciate retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have the potential to restore normal knee kinematics and thus improve patient outcome. Limited studies have examined the relationship between component alignment and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). This study aims to determine (1) accurate three-dimensional (3D) component alignment of BCR TKA and (2) whether the component alignment of BCR TKA affects PROMs. The 3D modeling analysis was performed based on computed tomography images from 29 BCR TKAs. Component orientations were quantified for femoral and tibial components in the sagittal, axial, and coronal planes. The knee society scores (KSS) were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 1-year follow-up. Multiple comparisons were performed to analyze the relationship between component alignment and patient outcomes. High variability was observed in the tibial component alignment (root–mean-square values: axial plane 6.6 degrees, sagittal plane 5.1 degrees, and coronal plane 4.0 degrees). At 1-year follow-up, significant improvement in KSS was noted in BCR TKA patients (p < 0.001). However, regression analysis adjusting for baseline KSS demonstrated the postoperative KSS was negatively associated with the posterior tibial slope (B [slope of the output of the regression analysis] = 2.597, p = 0.006). Patients with greater posterior tibial slopes were reported poorer postoperative functions at 1-year follow-up. Excessive posterior tibial slope may generate greater posterior force on the femur that leads to continuous overloading of the preserved ACL, suggesting optimal sagittal plane alignment of the tibial component may be important for the optimization of postoperative functions of BCR TKA patients.

Keywords

bicruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty - tibial component alignment - tibial slope - Knee Society score

• References

• 1 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 57-63
• 2 Scott CEH, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (09) 1253-1258
• 3 Gunaratne R, Pratt DN, Banda J, Fick DP, Khan RJK, Robertson BW. Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (12) 3854-3860
• 4 Jacobs CA, Christensen CP. Factors influencing patient satisfaction two to five years after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (06) 1189-1191
• 5 Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Banerjee S, Jauregui JJ, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Knee Surg 2014; 27 (03) 199-205
• 6 Heyse TJ, Slane J, Peersman G. , et al. Kinematics of a bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (06) 1784-1791
• 7 Pritchett JW. Bicruciate-retaining total knee replacement provides satisfactory function and implant survivorship at 23 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (07) 2327-2333
• 8 Arauz P, Peng Y, An S, Kwon Y-M. In-vivo analysis of sliding distance and cross-shear in Bi-cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech 2018; 77: 8-15
• 9 Baumann F, Krutsch W, Worlicek M. , et al. Reduced joint-awareness in bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty compared to cruciate-sacrificing total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (02) 273-279
• 10 Christensen JC, Brothers J, Stoddard GJ. , et al. Higher frequency of reoperation with a new bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (01) 62-69
• 11 Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA. The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (17) 1588-1596
• 12 de Steiger RN, Liu Y-L, Graves SE. Computer navigation for total knee arthroplasty reduces revision rate for patients less than sixty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (08) 635-642
• 13 Medalla GA, Moonot P, Peel T, Kalairajah Y, Field RE. Cost-benefit comparison of the Oxford Knee score and the American Knee Society score in measuring outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (04) 652-656
• 14 Caplan N, Kader DF. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. In: Banaszkiewicz PA, Kader DF. , eds. Classic Papers in Orthopaedics. London: Springer-Verlag; 2014: 197-199
• 15 Hadi M, Barlow T, Ahmed I, Dunbar M, McCulloch P, Griffin D. Does malalignment affect patient reported outcomes following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. Springerplus 2016; 5 (01) 1201
• 16 Panni AS, Ascione F, Rossini M. , et al. Tibial internal rotation negatively affects clinical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2018; 26 (06) 1636-1644
• 17 Tsai TY, Dimitriou D, Li G, Kwon YM. Does total hip arthroplasty restore native hip anatomy? three-dimensional reconstruction analysis. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (08) 1577-1583
• 18 Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S, Park S-D. The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (02) 379-385
• 19 Roper GE, Bloemke AD, Roberts CC, Spangehl MJ, Clarke HD. Analysis of tibial component rotation following total knee arthroplasty using 3D high definition computed tomography. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl.): 106-111
• 20 Kozanek M, Hosseini A, Liu F. , et al. Tibiofemoral kinematics and condylar motion during the stance phase of gait. J Biomech 2009; 42 (12) 1877-1884
• 21 Osmani FA, Thakkar SC, Collins K, Schwarzkopf R. The utility of bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2016; 3 (01) 61-66
• 22 Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K, Hirata G, Iwamoto Y. Effect of femoral and tibial component position on patellar tracking following total knee arthroplasty: 10-year follow-up of Miller-Galante I knees. Am J Knee Surg 2001; 14 (03) 152-156
• 23 Mizu-uchi H, Matsuda S, Miura H, Okazaki K, Akasaki Y, Iwamoto Y. The evaluation of post-operative alignment in total knee replacement using a CT-based navigation system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (08) 1025-1031
• 24 Nicoll D, Rowley DI. Internal rotational error of the tibial component is a major cause of pain after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (09) 1238-1244
• 25 Liow MHL, Tsai T-Y, Dimitriou D, Li G, Kwon Y-M. Does 3-dimensional in vivo component rotation affect clinical outcomes in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (10) 2167-2172
• 26 Barrett TJ, Shi L, Parsley BS. Bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty, a promising technology, that's not quite there. Ann Transl Med 2017; 5 (Suppl. 01) S17
• 27 Fujimoto E, Sasashige Y, Tomita T, Iwamoto K, Masuda Y, Hisatome T. Significant effect of the posterior tibial slope on the weight-bearing, midflexion in vivo kinematics after cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12) 2324-2330
• 28 Hernigou P, Deschamps G. Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A [phone]
• 29 Sawatari T, Tsumura H, Iesaka K, Furushiro Y, Torisu T. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty--the influence of tibial component inclination. J Orthop Res 2005; 23 (03) 549-554