Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(08): 828-837
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718681
Original Article

Gait and Knee Flexion In Vivo Kinematics of Asymmetric Tibial Polyethylene Geometry Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

Christian Klemt
1   Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
John Drago
1   Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Ruben Oganesyan
1   Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Evan J. Smith
1   Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Ingwon Yeo
1   Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Young-Min Kwon
1   Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The preservation of the posterior cruciate ligament in cruciate retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs has the potential to restore healthy knee biomechanics; however, concerns related to kinematic asymmetries during functional activities still exist in unilateral TKA patients. As there is a limited data available regarding the ability of the contemporary CR TKA design with concave medial and convex lateral tibial polyethylene bearing components to restore healthy knee biomechanics, this study aimed to investigate in vivo three-dimensional knee kinematics in CR TKA patients during strenuous knee flexion activities and gait. Using a combined computer tomography and dual fluoroscopic imaging system approach, in vivo kinematics of 15 unilateral CR TKA patients (comparison of replaced and contralateral nonreplaced knee) were evaluated during sit-to-stand, step-ups, single-leg deep lunge, and level walking. The patient cohort was followed-up at an average of 24.5 months ( ± 12.6, range 13–42) from surgical procedure. Significantly smaller internal knee rotation angles were observed for the contemporary CR TKA design during step-ups (2.6 ± 5.8 vs. 6.3 ± 6.6 degrees, p < 0.05) and gait (0.6 ± 4.6 vs. 6.3 ± 6.8 degrees, p < 0.05). Significantly larger proximal and anterior femoral translations were measured during sit-to-stand (34.7 ± 4.5 vs. 29.9 ± 3.1 mm, p < 0.05; –2.5 ± 2.9 vs. –8.1 ± 4.4 mm, p < 0.05) and step-ups (34.1 ± 4.5 vs. 30.8 ± 2.9 mm, p < 0.05; 2.2 ± 3.2 vs. –3.5 ± 4.5 mm, p < 0.05). Significantly smaller ranges of varus/valgus and internal/external rotation range of motion were observed for CR TKA, when compared with the nonoperated nee, during strenuous activities and gait. The preservation of the posterior cruciate ligament in the contemporary asymmetric bearing geometry CR TKA design with concave medial and convex lateral tibial polyethylene bearing components has the potential to restore healthy knee biomechanics; however, the study findings demonstrate that native knee kinematics were not fully restored in patients with unilateral asymmetric tibial polyethylene bearing geometry CR TKA during functional activities.

Keywords

cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty - in vivo 6DOF kinematics - sit-to-stand - step-ups - single-leg deep lunge - gait


Publication History

Received: 28 April 2020

Accepted: 06 September 2020

Article published online:
27 October 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D. et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73 (07) 1323-1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA. et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133 (08) 635-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gallo J, Goodman SB, Konttinen YT, Wimmer MA, Holinka M. Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms. Acta Biomater 2013; 9 (09) 8046-8058
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pua Y-H, Ong P-H, Chong H-C, Yeo W, Tan C, Lo N-N. Knee extension range of motion and self-report physical function in total knee arthroplasty: mediating effects of knee extensor strength. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tsai T-Y, Liow MHL, Li G. et al. Bi-cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty does not restore native tibiofemoral articular contact kinematics during gait. J Orthop Res 2019; 37 (09) 1929-1937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hennessy D, Arauz P, Klemt C, An S, Kwon YM. Gender influences gait asymmetry following bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2020; 33 (06) 582-588
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Arauz P, Klemt C, Limmahakhun S, An S, Kwon Y-M. Stair climbing and high knee flexion activities in bi-cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty: in vivo kinematics and articular contact analysis. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (03) 570-576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Crowninshield RD, Rosenberg AG, Sporer SM. Changing demographics of patients with total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 443 (443) 266-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2606-2612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Losina E, Katz JN. Total knee arthroplasty on the rise in younger patients: are we sure that past performance will guarantee future success?. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64 (02) 339-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Simmons S, Lephart S, Rubash H, Pifer GW, Barrack R. Proprioception after unicondylar knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (331) 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nozaki H, Banks SA, Suguro T, Hodge WA. Observations of femoral rollback in cruciate-retaining knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 308-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Nabeyama R, Matsuda S, Miura H. et al. Changes in anteroposterior stability following total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2003; 8 (04) 526-531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cates HE, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Schmidt MA, Anderle M. In vivo comparison of knee kinematics for subjects having either a posterior stabilized or cruciate retaining high-flexion total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (07) 1057-1067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J. Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (05) 646-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 de Beer J, Petruccelli D, Adili A, Piccirillo L, Wismer D, Winemaker M. Patient perspective survey of total hip vs total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (06) 865-869
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 D'Lima DD. CORR Insights®: are TKA kinematics during closed kinetic chain exercises associated with patient-reported outcomes? A preliminary analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478 (02) 264-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dickison DM, Li J, Kark L, Theodore W, Kolos E, Roe JP. Do patients feel the difference; relationship with patella femoral kinematics and patient reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (10) e117-e118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tsai T-Y, Dimitriou D, Li G, Kwon Y-M. Does total hip arthroplasty restore native hip anatomy? Three-dimensional reconstruction analysis. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (08) 1577-1583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Qi W, Hosseini A, Tsai T-Y, Li J-S, Rubash HE, Li G. In vivo kinematics of the knee during weight bearing high flexion. J Biomech 2013; 46 (09) 1576-1582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 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 (02) 136-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tsai T-Y, Li J-S, Wang S. et al. A novel dual fluoroscopic imaging method for determination of THA kinematics: in-vitro and in-vivo study. J Biomech 2013; 46 (07) 1300-1304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mehrani A, Ahmadvand P, Mehdizadeh Barforushi M, Mehrani K. Double functionalized nanoporous magnetic gadolinium–silica composite for doxorubicin delivery. J Inorg Organomet Polym Mater 2016; 26 (01) 226-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Walker SA, Tucker A. A multicenter analysis of axial femorotibial rotation after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (428) 180-189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lee YS, Park SJ, Song EK. et al. In vivo kinematics of a cruciate retaining mobilebearing total knee arthroplasty. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 2011; 12 (02) 361-366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell Jr CEJ. et al. In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (356) 47-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB. Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (416) 37-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fantozzi S, Catani F, Ensini A, Leardini A, Giannini S. Femoral rollback of cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee replacements: in vivo fluoroscopic analysis during activities of daily living. J Orthop Res 2006; 24 (12) 2222-2229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Acker SM, Cockburn RA, Krevolin J, Li RM, Tarabichi S, Wyss UP. Knee kinematics of high-flexion activities of daily living performed by male Muslims in the Middle East. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (02) 319-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moemans A. Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Influence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (01) 50-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Riley PO, Paolini G, Della Croce U, Paylo KW, Kerrigan DC. A kinematic and kinetic comparison of overground and treadmill walking in healthy subjects. Gait Posture 2007; 26 (01) 17-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Limmahakhun S, Box HN, Arauz P, Hennessy DW, Klemt C, Kwon Y-M. In vivo analysis of spinopelvic kinematics and peak head-cup contact in total hip arthroplasty patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease. J Orthop Res 2019; 37 (03) 674-680
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Grieco TF, Sharma A, Dessinger GM, Cates HE, Komistek RD. In vivo kinematic comparison of a bicruciate stabilized total knee arthroplasty and the normal knee using fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 565-571
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Peng Y, Arauz P, An S, Limmahakhun S, Klemt C, Kwon YM. Does component alignment affect patient reported outcomes following bicruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty? An in vivo three-dimensional analysis. J Knee Surg 2020; 33 (08) 798-803
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Arauz P, Peng Y, Castillo T, Klemt C, Kwon Y-M. In vitro kinematic analysis of single axis radius posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (11) 1253-1259
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar