Differences in patellofemoral contact stresses between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties: a dynamic in vitro measurement
Anterior knee pain is one of the most common problems after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Mobile-bearing designs should improve patella tracking with a reduced rate of patella tilt as well as reduced patellofemoral contact stresses and improve knee flexion. The aim of this dynamic in vitro investigation was to evaluate the changes of patellofemoral contact stresses after TKA using fixed and mobile-bearing designs.
Materials and methods
Seven knee specimens were mounted into a knee simulator imitating an isokinetic extension of the knee. The patellofemoral contact was measured before and after tricompartimental TKA with fixed and mobile-bearing designs using pressure-sensitive films. Contact stresses were measured from 120° knee flexion to full extension with a simulated force of the quadriceps muscle up to 1,200 N. Additionally all measurements were performed with simulated co-contraction of the hamstrings muscles.
Fixed-bearing TKA increases patellofemoral contact stresses compared to physiologic conditions. After patella resurfacing, contact stresses increase even more. By changing the prosthesis design to mobile bearing, maximum contact stress was measured to be punctual higher than in fixed-bearing implants. In the interval between 0°–30° and 70°–105° of flexion, obviously lower pressures were evaluated for the mobile-bearing design. With cocontraction of the hamstrings, a lower contact stress of the mobile-bearing design was evident for the complete measurement of the knee extension.
An increase of patellofemoral contact stresses after patellar resurfacing in TKA could be demonstrated. This outcome implicates a higher risk of patellofemoral complications. The mobile-bearing design showed evidently lower patellofemoral contact stresses than the fixed-bearing design.
KeywordsArthroplasty Knee prosthesis Patellofemoral pressure Mobile-bearing Kinematics
- 23.Nizard RS, Biau D, Porcher R, et al. (2005) A meta-analysis of patellar replacement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 196–203. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000150348.17123.7f
- 25.Ostermeier S, Holst M, Bohnsack M, Hurschler C, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Wirth CJ (2007) Dynamic measurement of patellofemoral contact pressure following reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament: an in vitro study. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 22:327–335. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2006.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Ostermeier S, Schlomach C, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, Stukenborg-Colsman C (2006) Dynamic in vitro measurement of posterior cruciate ligament load and tibiofemoral stress after TKA in dependence on tibiofemoral slope. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 21:525–532. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2005.12.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Stuart MJ, Hanssen AD, Jacofsky DJ (2004) Rotating platform knees did not improve patellar tracking: a prospective, randomized study of 240 primary total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 221–227. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000148892.31464.81
- 33.Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O (1988) Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 11-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:6–13Google Scholar
- 40.Whiteside LA, Nakamura T (2003) Effect of femoral component design on unresurfaced patellas in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 189–198. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000063605.67412.4d