Total Knee Post-Cam Design Variations and Their Effects on Kinematics and Wear Patterns

The Vega advanced third generation posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty system enables the restoration of range of motion for high demanding daily activities - A 5-years follow-up study

BACKGROUND

The Vega System® PS (Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany) is an advanced, third generation fixed implant that aims to mimic natural knee kinematics by optimizing pivotal motion while reducing surface stress. This study evaluated mid-term survival and clinical outcomes, including range of motion (ROM) of the modern posterior stabilized implant in order to analyse whether this biomechanically successful implant reaches good results in situ.

METHODS

The first 100 patients to receive the Vega PS System for total knee arthroplasty were invited to take part in this single centre, single surgeon study. Of these, 84 patients were clinically assessed 5-6 years postoperatively. Data which was obtained during this follow-up examination included revision data, range of motion and clinical scores.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rate for exchange of any component was 97.6%, whereby two patients required replacement of the polyethylene gliding surface. Secondary patella resurfacing was performed in 7 patients. Significantly improved results in comparison to the preoperative state could be obtained at the follow-up: KOOS improved from 39.4 to 78.8, SF-12 PCS improved from 32.1 to 42 SF-12 MCS improved from 46 to 53.8 and patella pain improved from 2.7 to 0.3. The mean ROM of the 84 patients after 5 years was 133.1° and mean total KSS was 189.9.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a high survival rate of the Vega PS System® and significant improvements in clinical outcomes 5 years after implantation. The obtained mean ROM indicates that this implant provides good flexibility of the knee joint, allowing a high number of activities. However, due to the rate of secondary patella implantation, routine resurfacing of the patella for all PS TKA cases is highly recommended.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02802085).

Patellar Dislocation Masking a Tibial Post Fracture: An Unusual Complication of Posterior Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty

Posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has established itself as a highly effective design for total knee arthroplasty, renowned for its longevity and success. However, a subset of cases, approximately 6-12%, faces early failure, necessitating revision procedures. This case report presents a unique and previously undocumented complication involving a tibial post fracture following hyperflexion of the knee, masked by chronic patellar dislocation. This case highlights the importance of considering polyethylene wear-related failure in cases of instability without an apparent history of trauma. The surgical intervention involved polyethylene insert exchange, patellar debulking, lateral retinacular release, and quadriceps tendon double-breasting.

Comparison of the in-vivo kinematics of three different knee prosthesis designs during a step-up movement

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the importance of the kinematics of the prosthetic joint for the clinical outcome after total knee arthroplasty. A 3-armed randomized controlled trial was done to determine and compare the in vivo kinematics of a posterior cruciate-retaining and two posterior cruciate-sacrificing (Anterior-Stabilized and Posterior-Stabilized) prosthetic designs from the same total knee arthroplasty system. Since the anterior-stabilized and posterior-stabilized designs are posterior cruciate ligament-sacrificing designs, we hypothesized they would have similar contact-point kinematics. Further, we hypothesized that the cruciate-retaining design would have contact-point kinematics different from the anterior-stabilized and the posterior-stabilized designs, but comparable to a native knee.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients with a well-functioning total knee arthroplasty one year postoperatively underwent kinematic analysis of a weight-bearing step-up movement under fluoroscopic recording. Model-based radiostereometric analysis was used to determine anteroposterior contact-point translations and rotations through the movement path to assess knee kinematics.

FINDINGS

The cruciate-retaining and anterior-stabilized groups' medial and lateral contact-points displayed similar paradoxical posterior translations during step-up in the magnitude of 7 and 2 mm, respectively. In contrast, the posterior-stabilized group's contact-points translated anteriorly by 4 and 10 mm throughout the movement and were significantly more posterior than the cruciate-retaining and the anterior-stabilized groups from >100° to 40° of flexion. The femur rotated internally with all designs.

INTERPRETATION

The cruciate-retaining and anterior-stabilized designs displayed similar contact-point translation patterns during a step-up movement. Only the posterior-stabilized design showed a pattern comparable to native knees. Conversion from a cruciate-retaining to an anterior-stabilized design because of posterior cruciate ligament insufficiency will not change knee kinematics.

Impact of femoro-tibial size combinations and TKA design on kinematics

INTRODUCTION

The variability in patients' femoral and tibial anatomy requires to use different tibia component sizes with the same femoral component size. These size combinations are allowed by manufacturers, but the clinical impact remains unclear. Therefore, the goals of our study were to investigate whether combining different sizes has an impact on the kinematics for two well-established knee systems and to compare these systems' kinematics to the native kinematics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six fresh frozen knee specimens were tested in a force controlled knee rig before and after implantation of a cruciate retaining (CR) and a posterior-stabilized (PS) implant. Femoro-tibial kinematics were recorded using a ultrasonic-based motion analysis system while performing a loaded squat from 30° to 130°. In each knee, the original best fit inlay was then replaced by different inlays simulating a smaller or bigger tibia component. The kinematics obtained with the simulated sizes were compared to the original inlay kinematics using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

For all size combinations, the difference to the original kinematics reached an average of 1.3 ± 3.3 mm in translation and - 0.1 ± 1.2° in rotation with the CR implant. With the PS implant, the average differences reached 0.4 ± 2.7 mm and  - 0.2 ± 0.8°. Among all knees, no size combination consistently resulted in significantly different kinematics. Each knee showed a singular kinematic pattern. For both knee systems, the rotation was smaller than in the native knee, but the direction of the rotation was preserved. The PS showed more rollback and the CR less rollback than the native knee.

CONCLUSION

TKA systems designed with a constant tibio-femoral congruency among size combinations should enable to combine different sizes without having substantial impact on the kinematics. The rotational pattern was preserved by both TKA systems, while the rollback could only be maintained by the PS design.

Optimal designs and surgical technique for hip and knee joint replacement: The best is yet to come!

Over the last three decades, there have been significant advancements in knee and hip replacement technology. The implants and the surgical technology we now have to aid in their implantation are advancing and improving functional outcomes and survivorship. Despite these advancements, there are still issues with patient satisfaction, functional limitations, and early revisions due to instability and aseptic loosening. This article reviews the state of current technology in hip and knee replacement implant design and surgical technique, and reviews some of the current implant designs and surgical technologies that may be able to solve some of the most common issues in the knee and hip replacement surgery.

Contact kinematics of patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The goal was to evaluate the joint contact kinematics of total knee arthroplasties implanted using patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) compared to conventional instrumentation (CI). We hypothesized that use of PSI would not significantly alter contact kinematics.

METHODS

The study was a prospective randomized controlled trial, with equal allocation of fifty patients to PSI and CI groups. At two years post-operation, patients underwent weight-bearing stereo X-ray examinations at 0°, 20°, 40°, 60°, 80°, and 100° of flexion. The shortest tibiofemoral distance on each condyle determined the contact location. Magnitude of the shortest distance was measured and condylar separation was analyzed using thresholds of 0.5 and 0.75 mm. Kinematic measurements derived from the shortest distance included anteroposterior (AP) translation, excursion, axial rotation, and paradoxical anterior motion. Pivot position and cam/post contact were also investigated.

RESULTS

There were no differences (p > 0.05) in medial and lateral AP contact locations, excursions, and magnitude of anterior motion, or in axial rotation, pivot patterns, frequency of cam/post engagement, frequency of medial anterior motion, and condylar separation at a 0.75 mm threshold. Significant differences were found in frequency of lateral anterior motion (p = 0.048) and condylar separation at a 0.5 mm threshold (p = 0.010). Both groups displayed typical kinematics for a fixed-bearing posterior-stabilized implant.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no major differences in knee kinematics between PSI and CI groups, which suggest that PSI does not provide a significant kinematic advantage over conventional instruments.

Total Knee Arthroplasty Kinematics

Knee kinematics is an analysis of motion pattern that is utilized to assess a comparative, biomechanical performance of healthy nonimplanted knees, injured nonimplanted knees, and various prosthetic knee designs. Unfortunately, a consensus between implanted knee kinematics and outcomes has not been reached. One might hypothesize that the kinematic variances between the nonimplanted and implanted knee might play a role in patient dissatisfaction following TKA. There is a wide range of TKA designs available today. With such variety, it is important for surgeons and engineers to understand the various geometries and kinematic profiles of available prostheses. The purpose of this review is to provide readers with the pertinent information related to TKA kinematics.

Biomechanical Characteristics of Three Baseplate Rotational Arrangement Techniques in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Introduction

Several ongoing studies aim to improve the survival rate following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which is an effective orthopedic surgical approach for patients with severely painful knee joint diseases. Among the studied strategies, baseplate rotational arrangement techniques for TKA components have been suggested but have been the subject of only simple reliability evaluations. Therefore, this study sought to evaluate comparatively three different baseplate rotational arrangement techniques that are commonly used in a clinical context.

Materials and Methods

Three-dimensional (3D) finite element (FE) models of the proximal tibia with TKA were developed and analyzed considering three baseplate rotational arrangement techniques (anterior cortex line, tibial tuberosity one-third line, and tibial tuberosity end line) for six activities of daily life (ADLs) among patients undergoing TKA. Mechanical tests based on the ASTM F1800 standard to validate the FE models were then performed using a universal testing machine. To evaluate differences in biomechanical characteristics according to baseplate rotational arrangement technique, the strain and peak von Mises stresses (PVMSs) were assessed.

Results

The accuracy of the FE models used in this study was high (94.7 ± 5.6%). For the tibial tuberosity one-third line rotational arrangement technique, strains ≤ 50 µstrain (the critical bone damage strain, which may affect bone remodeling) accounted for approximately 2.2%-11.3% and PVMSs within the bone cement ranged from 19.4 to 29.2 MPa, in ADLs with high loading conditions. For the tibial tuberosity end line rotational arrangement, strains ≤ 50 µstrain accounted for approximately 2.3%-13.3% and PVMSs within the bone cement ranged from 13.5 to 26.7 MPa. For anterior cortex line rotational arrangement techniques, strains ≤50 µstrain accounted for approximately 10.6%-16.6% and PVMSs within the bone cement ranged from 11.6 to 21.7 MPa.

Conclusion

The results show that the most recently developed frontal cortex line rotational alignment technique is the same or better than the other two rotational alignment techniques in terms of biomechanics. This finding can be, however, dependent on the contact characteristics between the baseplate and the proximal tibia. That is, it is indicated that the optimum baseplate rotational arrangement technique in terms of reducing the incidence of TKA mechanical failure can be achieved by adjusting the characteristics of contact between the baseplate and the proximal tibia.

Different intraoperative kinematics, stability, and range of motion between cruciate-substituting ultracongruent and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was the comparison of intraoperative kinematics, stability, and range of motion (ROM) between the native osteoarthritic knee and cruciate-substituting fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using both an ultracongruent (UC) and a posterior-stabilized (PS) insert design in the same patient. We hypothesized less knee flexion and less antero-posterior stability in the UC TKA.

METHODS

Intraoperative measurements of kinematics, stability, and ROM were performed in 40 patients before soft-tissue release and bone cuts, and after implantation of the final femoral and tibial implants with both a UC insert and a PS insert. All measurements were performed using a navigation system.

RESULTS

Kinematics changed significantly from a constant posterior femoral rollback before surgery to a paradoxical anterior translation during initial knee flexion with both inserts, but less pronounced with the PS insert (p < 0.001). There was significantly more posterior femoral rollback with the PS insert compared to the UC insert (p < 0.01). Stability measurements demonstrated no differences at full extension and 30° of knee flexion but significantly increased antero-posterior translation in 60° and 90° of knee flexion with the UC insert compared to the PS insert (p < 0.001). ROM measurements demonstrated improvement of knee flexion from 118° at the beginning of the surgery to 123° with the UC insert and 128° with the PS insert (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of a UC insert intraoperatively resulted in less antero-posterior stability and slightly less knee flexion compared to a PS insert. Surgeons should be aware of these differences when deciding for one of these options to substitute the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). The impact of these findings on clinical outcome needs further investigation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.