Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 3668–3677 | Cite as

Isolated patellofemoral arthroplasty reproduces natural patellofemoral joint kinematics when the patella is resurfaced

  • Hilde Vandenneucker
  • Luc Labey
  • Jos Vander Sloten
  • Kaat Desloovere
  • Johan Bellemans



The objectives of this in vitro project were to compare the dynamic three-dimensional patellofemoral kinematics, contact forces, contact areas and contact pressures of a contemporary patellofemoral prosthetic implant with those of the native knee and to measure the influence of patellar resurfacing and patellar thickness. The hypothesis was that these designs are capable to reproduce the natural kinematics but result in higher contact pressures.


Six fresh-frozen specimens were tested on a custom-made mechanical knee rig before and after prosthetic trochlear resurfacing, without and with patellar resurfacing in three different patellar thicknesses. Full three-dimensional kinematics were analysed during three different motor tasks, using infrared motion capture cameras and retroflective markers. Patellar contact characteristics were registered using a pressure measuring device.


The patellofemoral kinematic behaviour of the patellofemoral arthroplasty was similar to that of the normal knee when the patella was resurfaced, showing only significant (p < 0.0001) changes in patellar flexion. Without patellar resurfacing, significant more patellar flexion, lateral tilt and lateral rotation was noticed. Compared to the normal knee, contact pressures were significantly elevated after isolated trochlear resurfacing. However, the values were more than doubled after patellar resurfacing. Changes in patellar thickness only influenced the antero-posterior patellar position. There was no other influence on the kinematics, and only a limited influence on the contact pressures in the low flexion angles.


The investigated design reproduced the normal patellofemoral kinematics acceptable well when the patella was resurfaced. From a kinematic point of view, patellar resurfacing may be advisable. However, the substantially elevated patellar contact pressures remain a point of concern in the decision whether or not to resurface the patella. This study therefore not only adds a new point in the discussion whether or not to resurface the patella, but also supports the claimed advantage that a patellofemoral arthroplasty is capable to reproduce the natural knee kinematics.


Patellofemoral arthroplasty Kinematics Contact pressure Patellar resurfacing 



This study was performed in the European Centre for Knee Research of Smith&Nephew. The authors want to thank Ronny Decorte and Bernardo Innocenti for their continuous practical support.

Conflict of interest

Some of the authors have a sporadic consultancy agreement (lectures) with Smith&Nephew.


  1. 1.
    Ackroyd CE, Chir B (2005) Development and early results of a new patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:7–13CrossRefGoogle 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):310–315. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B3.18062 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Amis AA, Senavongse W, Darcy P (2005) Biomechanics of patellofemoral joint prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:20–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argenson JN, Flecher X, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM (2005) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: an update. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:50–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker PN, Refaie R, Gregg P, Deehan D (2012) Revision following patello-femoral arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(10):2047–2053. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1842-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beitzel K, Schottle PB, Cotic M, Dharmesh V, Imhoff AB (2013) Prospective clinical and radiological two-year results after patellofemoral arthroplasty using an implant with an asymmetric trochlea design. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(2):332–339. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2022-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belvedere C, Leardini A, Ensini A, Bianchi L, Catani F, Giannini S (2009) Three-dimensional patellar motion at the natural knee during passive flexion/extension. An in vitro study. J Orthop Res 27(11):1426–1431. doi: 10.1002/jor.20919 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bull AM, Katchburian MV, Shih YF, Amis AA (2002) Standardisation of the description of patellofemoral motion and comparison between different techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 10(3):184–193. doi: 10.1007/s00167-001-0276-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Khefacha A (2005) Long-term results with the first patellofemoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D’Lima DD, Chen PC, Kester MA, Colwell CW Jr (2003) Impact of patellofemoral design on patellofemoral forces and polyethylene stresses. J Bone Joint surg Am 85-A(Suppl 4):85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davies AP (2013) High early revision rate with the FPV patello-femoral unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.07.005 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delanois RE, McGrath MS, Ulrich SD, Marker DR, Seyler TM, Bonutti PM, Mont MA (2008) Results of total knee replacement for isolated patellofemoral arthritis: when not to perform a patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 39(3):381–388, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2008.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donell ST, Glasgow MM (2007) Isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Knee 14(3):169–176. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2006.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dy CJ, Franco N, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, McCarthy MM, Gonzalez Della Valle A (2012) Complications after patello-femoral versus total knee replacement in the treatment of isolated patello-femoral osteoarthritis. A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(11):2174–2190. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1677-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fregly BJ, Sawyer WG (2003) Estimation of discretization errors in contact pressure measurements. J Biomech 36(4):609–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta RR, Zywiel MG, Leadbetter WB, Bonutti P, Mont MA (2010) Scientific evidence for the use of modern patellofemoral arthroplasty. Expert Rev Med Devices 7(1):51–66. doi: 10.1586/erd.09.53 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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):117–123. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.160 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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
  19. 19.
    Krajca-Radcliffe JB, Coker TP (1996) Patellofemoral arthroplasty. A 2- to 18-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 330:143–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 436:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Leadbetter WB, Seyler TM, Ragland PS, Mont MA (2006) Indications, contraindications, and pitfalls of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(Suppl 4):122–137. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00856 Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leichtle UG, Wunschel M, Leichtle CI, Muller O, Kohler P, Wulker N, Lorenz A (2013) Increased patellofemoral pressure after TKA: an in vitro study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2372-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lonner JH (2004) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:158–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lonner JH (2007) Patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15(8):495–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lonner JH (2008) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: the impact of design on outcomes. Orthop Clin N Am 39(3):347–354, vi. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2008.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lonner JH (2010) Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 59:67–84PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lonner JH (2010) Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthopedics 33(9):653. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20100722-39 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lonner JH, Bloomfield MR (2013) The clinical outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 44(3):271–280, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.ocl.2013.03.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lotke PA, Lonner JH, Nelson CL (2005) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: the third compartment. J Arthroplasty 20(4 Suppl 2):4–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lustig S, Magnussen RA, Dahm DL, Parker D (2012) Patellofemoral arthroplasty, where are we today? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(7):1216–1226. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-1948-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Merchant AC (2004) Early results with a total patellofemoral joint replacement arthroplasty prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 19(7):829–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Merchant AC (2005) A modular prosthesis for patellofemoral arthroplasty: design and initial results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mofidi A, Bajada S, Holt MD, Davies AP (2012) Functional relevance of patellofemoral thickness before and after unicompartmental patellofemoral replacement. Knee 19(3):180–184. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.03.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Monk AP, van Duren BH, Pandit H, Shakespeare D, Murray DW, Gill HS (2012) In vivo sagittal plane kinematics of the FPV patellofemoral replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(6):1104–1109. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1717-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mont MA, Haas S, Mullick T, Hungerford DS (2002) Total knee arthroplasty for patellofemoral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(11):1977–1981CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mont MA, Johnson AJ, Naziri Q, Kolisek FR, Leadbetter WB (2012) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: 7-year mean follow-up. J Arthroplasty 27(3):358–361. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morris MJ, Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Hurst JM, Adams JB (2013) Clinical results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.012 Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nicol SG, Loveridge JM, Weale AE, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH (2006) Arthritis progression after patellofemoral joint replacement. Knee 13(4):290–295. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2006.04.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Odumenya M, Costa ML, Parsons N, Achten J, Dhillon M, Krikler SJ (2010) The Avon patellofemoral joint replacement: five-year results from an independent centre. J Bone Joint surg Br 92(1):56–60. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B1.23135 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pierson JL, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Faris PM, Meding JB, Berend ME, Davis KE (2007) The effect of stuffing the patellofemoral compartment on the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(10):2195–2203. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01223 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sisto DJ, Sarin VK (2007) Custom patellofemoral arthroplasty of the knee. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 2 Pt):214–225. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00186 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Smith AM, Peckett WR, Butler-Manuel PA, Venu KM, d’Arcy JC (2002) Treatment of patello-femoral arthritis using the Lubinus patello-femoral arthroplasty: a retrospective review. Knee 9(1):27–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    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):949–954. doi: 10.1007/s00167-010-1075-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    van Jonbergen HP, Werkman DM, Barnaart LF, van Kampen A (2010) Long-term outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(7):1066–1071. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.08.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Victor J, Labey L, Wong P, Innocenti B, Bellemans J (2010) The influence of muscle load on tibiofemoral knee kinematics. J Orthop Res 28(4):419–428. doi: 10.1002/jor.21019 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Victor J, Van Doninck D, Labey L, Innocenti B, Parizel PM, Bellemans J (2009) How precise can bony landmarks be determined on a CT scan of the knee? Knee 16(5):358–365. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.01.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Victor J, Van Glabbeek F, Vander Sloten J, Parizel PM, Somville J, Bellemans J (2009) An experimental model for kinematic analysis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 6):150–163. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00498 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Walker T, Perkinson B, Mihalko WM (2012) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: the other unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(18):1712–1720. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00539 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Walker T, Perkinson B, Mihalko WM (2013) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: the other unicompartmental knee replacement. Instr Course Lect 62:363–371PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wilson DR, Apreleva MV, Eichler MJ, Harrold FR (2003) Accuracy and repeatability of a pressure measurement system in the patellofemoral joint. J Biomech 36(12):1909–1915CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hilde Vandenneucker
    • 1
  • Luc Labey
    • 2
  • Jos Vander Sloten
    • 3
  • Kaat Desloovere
    • 4
  • Johan Bellemans
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Development and Regeneration - Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity Hospitals LeuvenPellenberg-LubbeekBelgium
  2. 2.European Centre for Knee ResearchSmith&NephewLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Biomechanics SectionUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Rehabilitation SciencesUniversity Hospital LeuvenPellenberg-LubbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations