Download PDF
Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 2016; 29(06): 484-490
DOI: 10.3415/VCOT-15-09-0158
Original Research
Schattauer GmbH

Evaluation of the relationship of tibiofemoral kinematics before and after total knee replacement in an in vitro model of cranial cruciate deficiency in the dog

Rebecca N. Howie
1   College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
,
Timothy L. Foutz
1   College of Engineering, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
,
Curtis C. Cathcart
2   Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
,
Jeff S. Burmeister
3   Department of Bioengineering, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA
,
Steve C. Budsberg
2   Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 21 September 2015

Accepted: 22 July 2016

Publication Date:
19 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To investigate the relationship between tibiofemoral kinematics before and after total knee replacement (TKR) in vitro.

Animals: Eight canine hemipelves.

Methods: A modified Oxford Knee Rig was used to place cadaveric limbs through a range of passive motion allowing the kinematics of the stifle to be evaluated. Four measurements were performed: a control stage, followed by a cranial cruciate transection stage, then following TKR with the musculature intact stage, and finally TKR with removal of limb musculature stage. Joint angles and translations of the femur relative to the tibia, including flexion-extension versus adduction-abduction, flexion-extension versus internal-external rotation, as well as flexion-extension versus each translation (cranial-caudal and lateral-medial) were calculated.

Results: Significant differences were identified in kinematic data from limbs following TKR implantation as compared to the unaltered stifle. The TKR resulted in significant decreases in external rotation of the stifle during flexion-extension compared to the limb prior to any intervention, as well as increasing the abduction. The TKR significantly increased the caudal translation of the femur relative to the tibia compared to the unaltered limb. When compared with the cranial cruciate ligament-transection stage, TKR significantly decreased the ratio of the external rotation to flexion.

Discussion: All three test periods showed significant differences from the unaltered stifle. The TKR did not completely restore the normal kinematics of the stifle.

Keywords

Kinematics - in vitro - total knee replacement - dog - canine - stifle
 

  • References

  • 1 Witsberger TH, Villamil JA, Schultz LG. et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for hip dysplasia and cranial cruciate ligament deficiency in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2008; 232: 1818-1824.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kowaleski MP, Boudrieau RJ, Pozzi A. In Tobias KM, Johnston SA. editors Veterinary Surgery Small Animal Volume 1. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2012: 906-998.
  • 3 Liska WD, Doyle ND. Canine total knee replacement: surgical technique and one-year outcome. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 568-582.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Laz PJ, Saikat P, Halloran JP. et al. Probabilistic finite element prediction of knee wear simulator mechanics. J Biomech 2006; 39: 2303-2310.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Luger E, Sathasivam S, Walker PS. Inherent differences in the laxity and stability bettween the intact knee and total knee replacements. Knee 1997; 4: 7-12.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kawanabe K, Clarke IC, Tamura J. et al. Effects of A-P translation and rotaton on the wear of UHMWPE in a total knee joint simulator. J Biomed Mater Res 2001; 54: 400-406.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 McEwan HM, Barnett I P, Bell CJ. et al. The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech 2005; 38: 357-365.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schwenks T, Borgstede LL, Schneider E. et al. The influence of slip velocity on wear of total knee arthroplasty. Wear 2005; 259: 926-932.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Li G, Zayontz S, Most E. et al. Cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: an in vitro comparison of the kinematics under muscle loads. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 150-156.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yue B, Varadarajan KM, Moynihan AL. et al. Kinematics of medial osteoarthritic knees before and after posterior cruciate ligament retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2011; 29: 40-46.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sharma A, Dennis DA, Zingde SM. et al. Femoral condylar contact points start and remain posterior in high flexing patients. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 945-949.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lew WD, Lewis JL. The effect of knee-prosthesis geometry on cruciate ligament mechanics during flexion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982; 64: 734-739.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lewandowski PJ, Askew MJ, Lin DF. et al. Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -sacrificing mobile bearing total knee arthroplasties. An in vitro comparison of the New Jersey LCS meniscal bearing and rotating platform prostheses. J Arthroplasty 1997; 12: 777-784.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Singerman R, Dean JC, Pagan HD. et al. Decreased posterior tibial slope increases strain in the posterior cruciate ligament following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11: 99-103.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yoshiya S, Matsui N, Komistek RD. et al. In vivo kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasties under passive and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20: 777-783.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Baker KM, Foutz TL, Johnsen KJ. et al. Effects of tibial plateau angle and spacer thickness applied during in vitro canine total knee replacement on three-dimensional kinematics and collateral ligament strain. Am J Vet Res 2014; 75: 792-799.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fregly BJ, Rahman HA, Banks SA. Theoretical accuracy of model-based shape matching for emasuring natural knee kninematics with single-place fluoroscopy. J Biomech Eng 2005; 127: 692-700.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zavatsky AB. A kinematic-freedom analysis of a flexed-knee-stance testing rig. J Biomech 1997; 30: 277-280.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Robertson DGE, Caldwell GE, Hamill J. et al. Research Methods in Biomechanics. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Willing R, Kim IY. Design optimization of a total knee replacement for improved constraint and flexion kinematics. J Biomech 2011; 44: 1014-1020.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hatfield GL, Hubley-Kozey CL, Wilson JA. et al. The effect of total knee arthroplasty on knee joint kinematics and kinetics during gait. J Arthroplasty 2010; 26: 309-318.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fu YC, Torres BT, Budsberg SC. Evaluation of a three-dimensional kinematic model for canine gait analysis. Am J Vet Res 2010; 71: 1118-1122.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Korvick DL, Pijanowski GJ, Schaeffer DJ. Three-dimensional kinematics of the intact and cranial cruciate ligament-deficient stifle of dogs. J Biomech 1994; 27: 1295-1295.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Grood ES, Suntay WJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng 1983; 105: 136-144.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tashman S, Anderst W, Kolowich P. et al. Kinematics of the ACL-deficient canine knee during gait: serial changes over two years. J Ortho Res 2004; 22: 931-941.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bertran J. Three dimensional robotic kinematic analysis of the canine total knee replacement. MSc [Thesis]. Columbus, Ohio, USA: Ohio State University 2015 Available at: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1447700134
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Athwal KK, Hunt NC, Davies AJ. et al. Clinical biomechanics of instability related to total knee arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2014; 29: 119-128.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Allen MJ, Leone KA, Lamonte K. et al. Cemented total knee replacement in 24 dogs: surgical technique, clinical results, and complications. Vet Surg 2009; 38: 555-567.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 McClelland JA, Webster KE, Feller JA. Gait analysis of patients following total knee replacement: A systematic review. Knee 2007; 14: 253-263.
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Scuderi GR. et al. Factors affecting flexion after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 464: 53-60.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Matsumoto K, Iwamoto K, Mori N. et al. In vivo kinematics of a low contact stress rotating platform total knee arthroplasty system underweight bearing and non-weight bearing condition. J Orthop Sci 2014; 19: 750-755.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shimizu N, Tomita T, Yamazaki T. et al. In vivo movement of femoral flexion axis of a single-radius total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 2407-2411.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jiang C, Liu Z, Wang Y. et al. Posterior cruciate ligament retention versus posterior stabilization for total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0147865.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar