Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 1104–1109 | Cite as

In vivo sagittal plane kinematics of the FPV patellofemoral replacement

  • A. P. Monk
  • B. H. van Duren
  • H. Pandit
  • D. Shakespeare
  • D. W. Murray
  • H. S. Gill



Isolated symptomatic patellofemoral osteoarthritis has been reported in 2% of men and 8% of women older than the age of 55 years in the community. With the development of improved designs and surgical techniques, interest in the use of patellofemoral replacement has increased. The primary aim of the newer generation of patellofemoral replacement implant designs has been to more closely reproduce normal knee kinematics. This study compares the functional sagittal plane in vivo kinematics of a contemporary patellofemoral prosthesis, the FPV, with normal knee kinematics using the patella tendon angle and patella flexion angle relationships with the knee flexion angle.


The in vivo kinematics for a group of 8 patients (15 knees) with patellofemoral replacement and 22 normal subjects was measured for both a step-up and a lunge exercise using an established fluoroscopic method.


The patella tendon angle characteristics of the implanted knees were similar to those of the normal knees for the step-up exercise with a significant difference only observed at 50° knee flexion angle. For the lunge exercise, the patella tendon angle for the implanted knee was consistently lower than that measured for the normal knee. Overall the subjects had excellent clinical scores post-patellofemoral replacement showing a significant improvement from their pre-operative scores.


The kinematics of the FPV implant was closer to normal than those of total knee implants; however, there were still differences from the normal knees.

Level of evidence



Patellofemoral replacement Kinematics Functional Outcome 



Financial support has been received from the NIHR Biomedical Research Unit into Musculoskeletal Disease, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre and University of Oxford.

Conflict of interest

The institution of one or more of the authors has received research funds from a commercial source.


  1. 1.
    Ackroyd CE, Chir B (2005) Development and early results of a new patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:7–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ackroyd CE, Newman JH, Evans R, Eldridge JD, Joslin CC (2007) The Avon patellofemoral arthroplasty: five-year survivorship and functional results. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(3):310–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ackroyd CE, Polyzoides AJ (1978) Patellectomy for osteoarthritis. A study of eighty-one patients followed from two to twenty-two years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60-B(3):353–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltzopoulos V (1995) A videofluoroscopy method for optical distortion correction and measurement of knee-joint kinematics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 10(2):85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Banks SA, Harman MK, Bellemans J, Hodge WA (2003) Making sense of knee arthroplasty kinematics: news you can use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(Suppl 4):64–72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banks SA, Hodge WA (1996) Accurate measurement of three-dimensional knee replacement kinematics using single-plane fluoroscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 43(6):638–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Becher C, Renke A, Heyse TJ, Schofer M, Tibesku CO, Fuchs-Winkelmann S (2008) Patellofemoral arthroplasty–results of a nation-wide survey in Germany and review of the literature. Z Orthop Unfall 146(6):773–781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blazina ME, Fox JM, Del Pizzo W, Broukhim B, Ivey FM (1979) Patellofemoral replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 144:98–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charalambous CP, Abiddin Z, Mills SP, Rogers S, Sutton P, Parkinson R (2011) The low contact stress patellofemoral replacement: high early failure rate. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(4):484–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(1):63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fantozzi S, Catani F, Ensini A, Leardini A, Giannini S (2006) Femoral rollback of cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee replacements: in vivo fluoroscopic analysis during activities of daily living. J Orthop Res 24(12):2222–2229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ficat RP, Ficat C, Gedeon P, Toussaint JB (1979) Spongialization: a new treatment for diseased patellae. Clin Orthop Relat Res 144:74–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gill HS, O’Connor JJ (1996) Biarticulating two-dimensional computer model of the human patellofemoral joint. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 11(2):81–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hollinghurst D, Stoney J, Ward T, Pandit H, Beard D, Murray DW (2007) In vivo sagittal plane kinematics of the Avon patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22(1):117–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kooijman HJ, Driessen AP, van Horn JR (2003) Long-term results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. A report of 56 arthroplasties with 17 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 85(6):836–840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leadbetter WB, Ragland PS, Mont MA (2005) The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty: an analysis of reported indications, contraindications, and failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:91–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lenz NM, Mane A, Maletsky LP, Morton NA (2008) The effects of femoral fixed body coordinate system definition on knee kinematic description. J Biomech Eng 130(2):021014. doi: 10.1115/1.2898713 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maquet P (1976) Advancement of the tibial tuberosity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 115:225–230PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McKeever DC (1955) Patellar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 37-A(5):1074–1084PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller RK, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW, O’Connor JJ (1998) In vitro measurement of patellofemoral force after three types of knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80(5):900–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pandit H, van Duren BH, Gallagher JA, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2008) Combined anterior cruciate reconstruction and Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: in vivo kinematics. Knee 15(2):101–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pandit H, Ward T, Hollinghurst D, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Thomas NP, Murray DW (2005) Influence of surface geometry and the cam-post mechanism on the kinematics of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(7):940–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Price AJ, Oppold PT, Murray DW, Zavatsky AB (2006) Simultaneous in vitro measurement of patellofemoral kinematics and forces following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(12):1591–1595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard DJ, Gill RH, Dodd CA, Murray DM (2004) Sagittal plane kinematics of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10 years: a comparative in vivo fluoroscopic analysis. J Arthroplasty 19(5):590–597PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rees JL, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Robinson BJ, Murray DW (2002) Defining the femoral axis on lateral knee fluoroscopy. Knee 9(1):65–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stagni R, Fantozzi S, Catani F, Leardini A (2010) Can Patellar Tendon Angle reveal sagittal kinematics in total knee arthroplasty? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(7):949–954PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tibesku CO, Daniilidis K, Vieth V, Skwara A, Heindel W, Fuchs-Winkelmann S (2011) Sagittal plane kinematics of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(9):1488–1495. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1462-8 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Duren BH, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS (2009) Accuracy evaluation of fluoroscopy-based 2D and 3D pose reconstruction with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Med Eng Phys 31(3):356–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Duren BH, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Zavatsky AB, Gallagher JA, Thomas NP, Shakespeare DT, Murray DW, Gill HS (2007) How effective are added constraints in improving TKR kinematics? J Biomech 40(Suppl 1):S31–37Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Jonbergen HP, Poolman RW, van Kampen A (2010) Isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop 81(2):199–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Wagenberg JM, Speigner B, Gosens T, de Waal Malefijt J (2009) Midterm clinical results of the Autocentric II patellofemoral prosthesis. Int Orthop 33(6):1603–1608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. P. Monk
    • 1
  • B. H. van Duren
    • 1
    • 2
  • H. Pandit
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Shakespeare
    • 3
  • D. W. Murray
    • 1
    • 4
  • H. S. Gill
    • 1
  1. 1.Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Engineering ScienceUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Nuffield Health Warwickshire HospitalLeamington Spa WarwickshireUK
  4. 4.Nuffield Orthopaedic CentreOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations