Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 1, pp 238–247 | Cite as

The Effect of Geometric Variations in Posterior-stabilized Knee Designs on Motion Characteristics Measured in a Knee Loading Machine

  • Peter S. Walker
  • Michael T. Lowry
  • Anoop Kumar
Symposium: 2013 Knee Society Proceedings

Abstract

Background

In different posterior-stabilized (PS) total knees, there are considerable variations in condylar surface radii and cam-post geometry. To what extent these variations affect kinematics is not known. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined ideal kinematics for a total knee.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of this study were to determine (1) what the kinematic differences are caused by geometrical variations between PS total knee designs in use today; and (2) what design characteristics will produce kinematics that closely resemble that of the normal anatomic knee.

Methods

Four current PS designs with different geometries and one experimental asymmetric PS design, with a relatively conforming medial side, were tested in a purpose-built machine. The machine applied combinations of compressive, shear, and torque forces at a sequence of flexion angles to represent a range of everyday activities, consistent with the ASTM standard test for measuring constraint. The femorotibial contact points, the neutral path of motion, and the AP and internal-external laxities were used as the kinematic indicators.

Results

The PS designs showed major differences in motion characteristics among themselves and with motion data from anatomic knees determined in a previous study. Abnormalities in the current designs included symmetric mediolateral motion, susceptibility to excessive AP medial laxity, and reduced laxity in high flexion. The asymmetric-guided motion design alleviated some but not all of the abnormalities.

Conclusions

Current PS designs showed kinematic abnormalities to a greater or lesser extent. An asymmetric design may provide a path to achieving a closer match to anatomic kinematics.

Clinical Relevance

One criterion for the evaluation of PS total knees is how closely the kinematics of the prosthesis resemble that of the anatomic knee, because this is likely to affect the quality of function.

Keywords

Posterior Cruciate Ligament Flexion Angle Tibial Component Posterior Displacement Rotational Laxity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Daniel Hennessy for constructing the desktop knee machine. Original design contributions to the machine were made by G. Yildirim. The finite element analysis study was carried out by B. Joshi with guidance from N. Gupta PhD, at NYU Polytechnic Institute.

References

  1. 1.
    ASTM Standard F1223-08. Determination of Total Knee Replacement Constraint. West Conshohocken, PA, USA: ASTM International; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB. Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:35–57.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    DesJardins JD, Banks SA, Benson LC, Pace T, LaBerge M. A direct comparison of patient and force-controlled simulator total knee replacement kinematics. J Biomech. 2007;40:3458–3466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Lima DD, Poole C, Chadha H, Hermida JC, Mahar A, Colwell CW Jr. Quadriceps moment arm and quadriceps forces after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:213–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eckhoff D, Hogan C, DiMatteo L, Robinson M, Bach J. Difference between the epicondylar and cylindrical axis of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:238–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW, Rullkoetter PJ. The role of patient, surgical, and implant design variation in total knee replacement performance. J Biomech. 2012;45:2092–2102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Galloway F, Worsley P, Stokes M, Nair P, Taylor M. Development of a statistical model of knee kinetics for applications in pre-clinical testing. J Biomech. 2012;45:191–195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Haider H. Tribological assessment of UHMWPE in the knee. In: Kurtz SM, ed. UHMWPE Biomaterials Handbook—Ultra-high molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement and Medical Devices. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA, USA: Elsevier Publishing; 2012.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haider H, Walker PS. Measurements of constraint of total knee replacement. J Biomech. 2005;38:341–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haider H, Walker PS, DesJardins J, Blunn G. Effects of patient and surgical alignment variables on kinematics in TKR simulation under force-control. JAI. 2006;3:3–14.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halloran JP, Clary CW, Maletsky LP, Taylor M, Petrella AJ, Rullkoetter PJ. Verification of predicted knee replacement kinematics during simulated gait in the Kansas knee simulator. J Biomech Eng. 2010;132:081010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hein CS, Postak PD, Plaxton NA, Greenwald AS. Classification of mobile-bearing knee designs: mobility and constraint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;2:32–37.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heinlein B, Kutzner I, Graichen F, Bender A, Rohlmann A, Halder AM, Beier A, Bergmann G. ESB clinical biomechanics award 2008: complete data of total knee replacement loading for level walking and stair climbing measured in vivo with a follow-up of 6–10 months. Clin Biomech. 2009;24:315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kessler O, Durselen L, Banks S, Mannel H, Marin F. Sagittal curvature of total knee replacements predicts in vivo kinematics. Clin Biomech. 2007;22:52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li G, Most E, Sultan PG, Schule S, Zayontz S, Park SE, Rubash HE. Knee kinematics with a high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis: an in vitro robotic experimental investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1721–1729.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li G, Papannagari R, Most E, Park SE, Johnson T, Tanamal L, Rubash HE. Anterior tibial post impingement in a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2005;23:536–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin KJ, Huang CH, Liu YL, Chen WC, Chang TW, Yang CT, Lai YS, Cheng CK. Influence of post-cam design of posterior stabilized knee prosthesis on tibiofemoral motion during high knee flexion. Clin Biomech. 2011;26:847–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Luger E, Sathasivam S, Walker PS. Inherent differences in the laxity and stability between the intact knee and total knee replacements. Knee. 1997;4:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mihalko WM, Conner DJ, Benner R, Williams JL. How does TKA kinematics vary with transverse plane alignment changes in a contemporary implant? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:186–192.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moran MF, Bhimji S, Racanello J, Piazza SJ. Computational assessment of constraint in total knee replacement. J Biomech. 2008;41:2013–2020.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Most E, Axe J, Rubash H, Li G. Sensitivity of the knee joint kinematics calculation to selection of flexion axes. J Biomech. 2004;37:1743–1748.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ngai V, Wimmer MA. Kinematic evaluation of cruciate-retaining total knee replacement patients during level walking: a comparison with the displacement-controlled ISO standard. J Biomech. 2009;42:2363–2368.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pritchett JW. Patients prefer a bicruciate-retaining or the medial pivot total knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:224–228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sutton LG, Werner FW, Haider H, Hamblin T, Clabeaux JJ. In vitro response of the natural cadaver knee to the loading profiles specified in a standard for knee implant wear testing. J Biomech. 2010;43:2203–2207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Varadarajan KM, Harry RE, Johnson T, Li G. Can in vitro systems capture the characteristic differences between the flexion-extension kinematics of the healthy and TKA knee? Med Eng Phys. 2009;31:899–906.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Victor J, Labey L, Wong P, Innocenti B, Bellemans J. The influence of muscle load on tibiofemoral knee kinematics. J Orthop Res. 2009;28:419–428.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker PS, Glauber SM, Haoting W. Laboratory evaluation method for the functional performance of total knee replacements. JAI. 2012 Apr 1 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walker PS, Haider H. Standard testing methods for mobile bearing knees. JAI. 2011 Nov 8 [Epub ahead of print].Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walker PS, Heller Y, Cleary DJ, Yildirim G. Preclinical evaluation method for total knees designed to restore normal knee mechanics. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:152–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walker PS, Heller Y, Yildirim I, Immerman I. Reference axes for comparing the motion of knee replacements with the anatomic knee. Knee. 2011;18:312–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Walker PS, Sussman-Fort JM, Yildirim G, Boyer J. Design features of total knees for achieving normal knee motion characteristics. J Arthroplasty. 2008;24:475–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Willing R, Kim IY. Design optimization of a total knee replacement for improved constraint and flexion kinematics. J Biomech. 2011;44:1014–1020.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yildirim G, Walker PS, Boyer J. Total knees designed for normal kinematics evaluated in an up-and-down crouching machine. J Orthop Res. 2009;27:1022–1027.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter S. Walker
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Michael T. Lowry
    • 1
  • Anoop Kumar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryNew York University–Hospital for Joint DiseasesNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Aerospace EngineeringPolytechnic Institute of New York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Laboratory for Orthopaedic Implant DesignNew York University–Hospital for Joint DiseasesNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations