Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 150–156 | Cite as

In vivo flexion and kinematics of the knee after TKA: comparison of a conventional and a high flexion cruciate-retaining TKA design

  • Jeremy F. Suggs
  • Young-Min Kwon
  • Sridhar M. Durbhakula
  • George R. Hanson
  • Guoan Li


This study investigated the in vivo 6DOF knee kinematics and tibiofemoral contact location after total knee arthroplasty using a conventional and a high flexion cruciate retaining component (15 NexGen CR, 11 NexGen CR-Flex). Each patient performed a single-leg lunge while being imaged by a dual fluoroscopic imaging system. Data were analyzed at hyperextension, 0° to 90° in 15° intervals, and at maximum flexion. The average maximum weight-bearing flexion for all the CR patients was 110.1° ± 13.4°, and for all the CR-Flex patients was 108.2° ± 13.2°. No difference was seen in the maximum flexion achieved by the patients, and the kinematics demonstrated by the groups was similar. However, at high flexion, the tibiofemoral articulating surfaces were more conforming in the CR-Flex design than the CR design, suggesting that the use of the high flexion component improved the tibiofemoral contact environment at high flexion in patients who could achieve high flexion.


Total knee arthroplasty High flexion In vivo kinematics Biomechanics Knee 



This study was supported by a research grant from Zimmer Inc. The guidance of Dr. Harry Rubash and Dr. Andrew Freiberg and the technical assistance of Elizabeth Desouza and Angela Moynihan were greatly appreciated. The experiments performed in the course of this study comply with the laws of the United States.


  1. 1.
    Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, De Luca L (2005) Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 20:145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Mahfouz M, Walker SA, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA (2004) A high flexion total knee arthroplasty design replicates healthy knee motion. Clin Orthop 1:174–179Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banks S, Bellemans J, Nozaki H, Whiteside LA, Harman M, Hodge WA (2003) Knee motions during maximum flexion in fixed and mobile-bearing arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 410:131–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moemans A (2002) Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Influence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:50–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertin KC (2005) Cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty at 5 to 7 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:177–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bin SI, Nam TS (2006) Early results of high-flex total knee arthroplasty: comparison study at 1 year after surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:350–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta SK, Ranawat AS, Shah V, Zikria BA, Zikria JF, Ranawat CS (2006) The P.F.C. sigma RP-F TKA designed for improved performance: a matched-pair study. Orthopedics 29:S49–S52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hanson GR, Suggs JF, Freiberg AA, Durbhakula S, Li G (2006) Investigation of in vivo 6DOF total knee arthoplasty kinematics using a dual orthogonal fluoroscopic system. J Orthop Res 24:974–981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hemmerich A, Brown H, Smith S, Marthandam SS, Wyss UP (2006) Hip, knee, and ankle kinematics of high range of motion activities of daily living. J Orthop Res 24:770–781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang HT, Su JY, Wang GJ (2005) The early results of high-flex total knee arthroplasty: a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 20:674–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim YH, Sohn KS, Kim JS (2005) Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1470–1475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laubenthal KN, Smidt GL, Kettelkamp DB (1972) A quantitative analysis of knee motion during activities of daily living. Phys Ther 52:34–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li G, Most E, Sultan PG, Schule S, Zayontz S, Park SE, Rubash HE (2004) Knee kinematics with a high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis: an in vitro robotic experimental investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1721–1729PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li G, Suggs J, Hanson G, Durbhakula S, Johnson T, Freiberg A (2006) Three-dimensional tibiofemoral articular contact kinematics of a cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:395–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li G, Zayontz S, DeFrate LE, Most E, Suggs JF, Rubash HE (2004) Kinematics of the knee at high flexion angles: an in vitro investigation. J Orthop Res 22:90–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Most E, Sultan PG, Park SE, Papannagari R, Li G (2006) Tibiofemoral contact behavior is improved in high-flexion cruciate retaining TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:59–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagura T, Otani T, Suda Y, Matsumoto H, Toyama Y (2005) Is high flexion following total knee arthroplasty safe?: evaluation of knee joint loads in the patients during maximal flexion. J Arthroplasty 20:647–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ranawat AS, Gupta SK, Ranawat CS (2006) The P.F.C. sigma RP-F total knee arthroplasty: designed for improved performance. Orthopedics 29:S28–S29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ranawat CS (2003) Design may be counterproductive for optimizing flexion after TKR. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:174–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ritter MA (2006) High-flexion knee designs: more hype than hope? In the affirmative. J Arthroplasty 21:40–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowe PJ, Myles CM, Walker C, Nutton R (2000) Knee joint kinematics in gait and other functional activities measured using flexible electrogoniometry: how much knee motion is sufficient for normal daily life? Gait Posture 12:143–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seon JK, Song EK, Lee JY (2005) Comparison of range of motion of high-flexion prosthesis and mobile-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 28:s1247–s1250PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suggs JF, Hanson GR, Park SE, Moynihan AL, Li G (2008) Patient function after a posterior stabilizing total knee arthroplasty: cam-post engagement and knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:290–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sultan PG, Most E, Schule S, Li G, Rubash HE (2003) Optimizing flexion after total knee arthroplasty: advances in prosthetic design. Clin Orthop 416:167–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J (2005) Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87-B:646–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy F. Suggs
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Young-Min Kwon
    • 1
  • Sridhar M. Durbhakula
    • 1
  • George R. Hanson
    • 1
  • Guoan Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Bioengineering Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Exponent, Inc.PhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations