Critical Examination of Methods to Determine Tibiofemoral Kinematics and Tibial Contact Kinematics Based on Analysis of Fluoroscopic Images

Goals of knee replacement surgery are to restore function and maximize implant longevity. To determine how well these goals are satisfied, tibial femoral kinematics and tibial contact kinematics are of interest. Tibiofemoral kinematics, which characterize function, is movement between the tibia and femur whereas tibial contact kinematics, which is relevant to implant wear, is movement of the location of contact by the femoral implant on the tibial articular surface. The purposes of this review article are to describe and critique relevant methods to guide correct implementation. For tibiofemoral kinematics, methods are categorized as those which determine (1) relative planar motions and (2) relative three-dimensional (3D) motions. Planar motions are determined by first finding anterior-posterior (A-P) positions of each femoral condyle relative to the tibia and tracking these positions during flexion. Of the lowest point (LP) and flexion facet center (FFC) methods, which are common, the lowest point method is preferred and the reasoning is explained. 3D motions are determined using the joint coordinate system (JCS) of Grood and Suntay. Previous applications of this JCS have resulted in motions which are largely in error due to "kinematic crosstalk." Requirements for minimizing kinematic crosstalk are outlined followed by an example, which demonstrates the method for identifying a JCS that minimizes kinematic crosstalk. Although kinematic crosstalk can be minimized, the need for a JCS to determine 3D motions is questionable based on anatomical constraints, which limit varus-valgus rotation and compression-distraction translation. Methods for analyzing tibial contact kinematics are summarized and validation of methods discussed.

Medial-pivot design does not provide superior clinical results compared to posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty despite kinematic differences during step-up and lunge activities: A prospective randomized controlled trial under medial tight soft tissue balance

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare in vivo kinematics during weight-bearing daily activities and determine the relationship with clinical outcomes in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a medial-pivot (MP, Evolution™) versus a posterior-stabilized (PS, Persona®) design under constant conditions of intraoperative soft tissue balance.

METHODS

Forty patients undergoing MP or PS-TKA under similar conditions of soft tissue balance were enrolled in this prospective randomized controlled trial. Outcome measures included clinical knee society scores (KSS) and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores (KOOS). A kinematic assessment was conducted while the participants performed lunge and step-up activities under fluoroscopic guidance.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients in each arm completed 1-year follow-up and were included in the analysis. All patients experienced pain relief and satisfactory knee function postoperatively. In kinematics, in the MP arm, the medial femoral condyle remained consistent, whereas the lateral femoral condyle gradually shifted posteriorly with increasing knee flexion. Conversely, in the PS arm, paradoxical anterior movement of the medial femoral condyle accompanied the lateral pivot motion. During lunge and step-up activities, a medial-pivot motion was observed in 83% and 72% of knees in the MP arm, respectively, compared with 22% and 11% in the PS arm. Despite these differences in kinematics, there were no statistically significant differences in the KSS and KOOS between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Under weight-bearing conditions during flexion, knees that underwent Evolution™ MP-TKA did not show superior clinical results compared to Persona® PS-TKA, despite exhibiting in vivo kinematics closely resembling the normal in vivo pattern.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic studies-Level I.

Medial-pivot total knee arthroplasty enhances tibiofemoral axial rotation stability in weight-bearing mid-range flexion compared to posterior-stabilised system

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) stands as a primary intervention for severe knee ailments, yet concerns remain regarding postoperative patient satisfaction and flexion instability. This study aims to evaluate the in-vivo kinematics of medial-pivot (MP) and posterior-stabilised (PS) designs during step-up activity, in comparison to the kinematics of the nonoperated contralateral knee.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with PS-TKA and 14 with MP-TKA were retrospectively examined. Clinical outcomes were assessed using patient-completed questionnaires. Motion during step-up was captured using a dual fluoroscopic system. Statistical analysis was applied to evaluate the in-vivo tibiofemoral six-degree-of-freedom kinematics and articular contact positions between the two groups.

RESULTS

Despite being older, patients in the MP group reported higher postoperative subjective scores for weight-bearing functional activities. The axial rotation centres of MP-TKA located on the medial tibial plateau exhibited less variance compared to PS-TKA and contralateral knees. Compared to the contralateral knee (contralateral to medial-pivot [C-MP] or contralateral to posterior-stabilised [C-PS]), the MP group exhibited limited range of motion in terms of anteroposterior translation (MP: 3.6 ± 1.3 mm vs. C-MP: 7.4 ± 2.5 mm, p < 0.01) and axial rotation (MP: 6.6 ± 1.9° vs. C-MP: 10.3 ± 4.9°, p = 0.02), as well as in the PS group for anteroposterior translation (PS: 3.9 ± 1.7 mm vs. C-PS: 7.2 ± 3.7 mm, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The MP group with better postoperative ratings demonstrated a more stable MP axial rotation pattern during step-up activity compared to the PS group, underscoring the pivotal role of prosthetic design in optimising postoperative rehabilitation and functional recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

The posterolateral upslope of a low-conforming insert blocks the medial pivot during a deep knee bend in TKA: a comparative analysis of two implants with different insert conformities

PURPOSE

Tibial insert conformity in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is of interest due to the potential effect on tibiofemoral kinematics. This study determined differences in anterior-posterior movements of the femoral condyles, pivot locations, and internal tibial rotation in different arcs of flexion for two implants with different insert conformities in kinematically aligned TKA.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients treated with a medial and lateral low-conforming, posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retaining (LC CR) implant followed by a medial ball-in-socket and flat, lateral PCL sacrificing (B-in-S CS) implant in the contralateral knee underwent single-plane fluoroscopy during a deep knee bend. Analysis following 3D-to-2D image registration determined tibiofemoral kinematics and patients completed validated outcome scores for both knees.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up of 1.6 ± 0.4 years for the knee with the B-in-S CS implant was shorter than the 2.7 ± 1.2 years for the LC CR implant. From 0º to 30º of flexion, a medial pivot occurred with the tibia rotating internally approximately 5º with both implants. From 30º to 90º, the pivot remained medial and internal rotation increased to 10º with the B-in-S CS implant. In contrast, neither femoral condyle moved more than 1 mm with the LC CR implant from 30º to 60º, but from 60º to 90º degrees, a lateral pivot occurred and internal rotation increased. Internal rotation of the tibia on the femur from 0° to maximum flexion occurred about a medial pivot similar to the native knee for the B-in-S CS implant and was 4.5° greater than that of the LC CR implant (10.4° vs 5.9°). There was no difference in the median patient-reported outcome scores between implant designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Tibial insert conformity is a primary determinant of a medial or lateral pivot during a deep knee bend. One explanation for the transition from a medial to lateral pivot between 30º and 60º with the LC CR implant is the chock-block effect of the insert's posterolateral upslope which impedes posterior movement of the lateral femoral condyle. Because there is no posterolateral upslope in the insert of the B-in-S CS implant, the tibia pivots medially throughout flexion similar to the native knee.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Larger Medial Contact Area and More Anterior Contact Position in Medial-Pivot than Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty during In-Vivo Lunge Activity

This study aimed to compare the in-vivo kinematics and articular contact status between medial-pivot total knee arthroplasty (MP-TKA) and posterior stabilized (PS) TKA during weight-bearing single-leg lunge. 16 MP-TKA and 12 PS-TKA patients performed bilateral single-leg lunges under dual fluoroscopy surveillance to determine the in-vivo six degrees-of-freedom knee kinematics. The closest point between the surface models of the femoral condyle and the polyethylene insert was used to determine the contact position and area. The nonparametric statistics analysis was performed to test the symmetry of the kinematics between MP-TKA and PS-TKA. PS-TKA demonstrated a significantly greater range of AP translation than MP-TKA during high flexion (p = 0.0002). Both groups showed a significantly greater range of lateral compartment posterior translation with medial pivot rotation. The contact points of PS-TKA were located significantly more posterior than MP-TKA in both medial (10°–100°) and lateral (5°–40°, 55°–100°) compartments (p < 0.0500). MP-TKA had a significantly larger contact area in the medial compartment than in the lateral compartment. In contrast, no significant differences were observed in PS-TKA. The present study revealed no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the MP and PS groups. The PS-TKA demonstrated significantly more posterior translations than MP-TKA at high flexion. The contact points are located more posteriorly in PS-TKA compared with MP-TKA. A larger contact area and medial pivot pattern during high flexion in MP-TKA indicated that MP-TKA provides enhanced medial pivot rotation.

Posterior rim loading of a low-conforming tibial insert in unrestricted kinematic alignment is caused by rotational alignment of an asymmetric baseplate designed for mechanical alignment

PURPOSE

Because different targets are used for internal-external rotation, an asymmetric baseplate designed for mechanical alignment may lead to under-coverage and concomitant posterior rim loading in the lateral compartment following unrestricted kinematic alignment (KA) TKA. Recognizing that such loading can lead to premature wear and/or subsidence, our aim was to determine the cause(s) so that occurrence could be remedied. Our hypothesis was that baseplate design features such as asymmetric shape when aligned in KA would consistently contribute to posterior rim loading in the lateral compartment.

METHODS

Based on analysis of fluoroscopic images of 50 patients performing dynamic, weight bearing deep knee bend and step up and of postoperative CT images, five possible causes were investigated. Causes included internal rotation of the baseplate when positioned in KA; posterior position of the lateral femoral condyle at extension; internal tibial rotation with flexion; internal rotational deviation of the baseplate from the KA rotation target; and posterior slope.

RESULTS

The incidence of posterior rim loading was 18% (9 of 50 patients). When positioned in KA, the asymmetric baseplate left 15% versus 10% of the AP depth of the lateral compartment uncovered posteriorly for posterior rim loading and non-posterior rim loading groups, respectively (p = 0.009). The lateral femoral condyle at extension was more posterior by 4 mm for the posterior rim loading group (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior rim loading in the lateral compartment was caused in part by the asymmetric design of the tibial baseplate designed for mechanical alignment which was internally rotated when positioned in KA thus under-covering a substantial percentage of the posterior lateral tibia. This highlights the need for new, asymmetric baseplates designed to maximize coverage when used in KA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Circle-based model to estimate error in using the lowest points to indicate locations of contact developed by the femoral condyles on the tibial insert in total knee arthroplasty

A common method used to study tibiofemoral joint biomechanics following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the lowest point method, which finds the lowest points of each femoral condyle in relation to the plane of the resected tibia. The objectives of this paper were twofold: 1) to use a circle-based model to demonstrate the large inherent error introduced when the lowest points are used to indicate anterior-posterior (AP) positions of contact by the femur on the tibial insert, 2) to use the circle-based model to estimate the magnitude of error. A circle-based model was created to simulate articular surfaces of the tibial insert and condyles of the femoral component and to demonstrate the error. Equations relating the error to radii of tibial and femoral articular surfaces were derived. The magnitude of the error was estimated for common low-conforming TKA components by determining radii using best-fit circles to approximate curvature of articular surfaces. Error in AP tibial insert contact locations is caused by the slope of the tibial articular surface and the magnitude increases with increasing slope and increasing radius of the femoral condyle. For radii approximating articular surfaces of common low-conforming components, relative errors range from 45% to 109%. The circle-based model effectively demonstrates the cause of the large error in using lowest points to indicate AP tibial insert contact locations and enables an estimate of relative error. Because relative error exceeds 45%, the lowest point method should not be used to indicate the AP tibial insert contact locations.

Small differences in tibial contact locations following kinematically aligned TKA from the native contralateral knee

PURPOSE

Kinematically aligned (KA) TKA strives to restore native limb and knee alignments without ligament release with the premise that knee function likewise will be closely restored to native to the extent enabled by the components used. This study determined differences in anterior-posterior (AP) tibial contact locations of a KA TKA performed with asymmetric, fixed bearing, posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) components from those of the native contralateral knee and also determined the incidence of posterior rim contact of the tibial insert during a deep knee bend and a step-up.

METHODS

Both knees were imaged using single-plane fluoroscopy for 25 patients with a calipered KA TKA and a native knee in the contralateral limb. AP tibial contact locations in each compartment were determined following 3D model-to-2D image registration. Differences in mean AP tibial contact locations in each compartment between the KA TKA knees and the native contralateral knees were analysed. Contact locations either on or beyond the most posterior point of the tibial insert determined the occurrence of posterior rim contact.

RESULTS

Mean AP tibial contact locations for both native and KA TKA knees remained relatively centred in the medial compartment but moved posterior in the lateral compartment during flexion. In both the medial and lateral compartments, differences in mean AP tibial contact locations between the KA TKA knees and the native contralateral knees were more posterior and greatest at 0° flexion for both activities (4 mm, p = 0.0009 and 7 mm, p < 0.0001 for deep knee bend and 6 mm, p < 0.0001 and 8 mm, p < 0.0001 for step-up in the medial and lateral compartments, respectively). The incidence of posterior rim contact of the tibial insert was 16% (4 of 25 patients) but the lowest Oxford Knee Score was 43 for these patients. The median Oxford Knee Score for all patients was 46 (out of 48).

CONCLUSIONS

Calipered KA TKA with asymmetric, fixed bearing, PCR components resulted in mean AP tibial contact locations which were relatively centred in the compartments and differed at most from those of the native contralateral knee by approximately 15% of the AP dimension of a mid-sized tibial baseplate. Although posterior rim contact occurred in some patients, all such patients had high patient-reported outcome scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level III.

Does the condylar lift-off method or the separation method better detect loss of contact between tibial and femoral implants based on analysis of single-plane radiographs following total knee arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Loss of contact between the femoral and tibial implants following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been related to accelerated polyethylene wear and other complications. Two methods have been used to detect loss of contact in single-plane fluoroscopy, the condylar lift-off method and the separation method. The objectives were to assess the ability of each method to detect loss of contact.

METHODS

TKA was performed on ten cadaveric knee specimens. Tibial force was measured in each compartment as specimens were flexed from 0° to 90° while internal-external and varus-valgus moments were applied. Single-plane radiographs taken simultaneously with tibial force were analyzed for loss of contact using the two methods. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and optimum threshold distances were determined.

RESULTS

For the lift-off method and the separation method, the areas under the ROC curves were 0.89 vs 0.60 for the lateral compartment only and 0.81 vs 0.70 for the medial compartment only, respectively. For the lift-off method, the optimum threshold distances were 0.7 mm in the lateral compartment only and 0.1 mm in the medial compartment only but the false positive rate for the medial compartment only almost doubled. For both compartments jointly, the areas under the ROC curves decreased to 0.70 and 0.59 for the lift-off and separation methods, respectively.

CONCLUSION

When detecting loss of contact using single-plane fluoroscopy, the lift-off method is useful for the lateral compartment only but not for the medial compartment only and not for both compartments jointly. The separation method is not useful.