Kinematics of Mobile Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty
Review of the kinematic patterns of fixed- vs. mobile-bearing TKA has not demonstrated major differences, with the following exceptions. Less (minimal) anteroposterior translation of both the medial and lateral femoral condyles was observed during gait in patients who received mobile-bearing designs than in those implanted with fixed-bearing TKA. This is likely secondary to the increased sagittal femorotibial conformity present in most mobile-bearing designs. This reduces polyethylene shear stresses and should result in lower polyethylene wear rates in mobile-bearing TKA.
In rotating-platform mobile-bearing designs, axial rotation occurs primarily on the inferior surface of the polyethylene bearing, as compared with primarily on the superior surface in fixed-bearing TKA. This should reduce shear forces on the superior aspect of the polyethylene bearing, thereby lessening wear. Additionally, while average axial rotational values following TKA were limited (<10°), a significant number of subjects exhibited higher magnitudes (>20°) of rotation which exceed the rotational limits of most fixed bearing TKA designs. This may be an advantage of rotating-platform mobile-bearing TKA designs which can accommodate a wider range of axial rotation without creation of excessive polyethylene stresses.
KeywordsTotal Knee Arthroplasty Knee Flexion Stance Phase Normal Knee Total Knee Arthroplasty Group
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 9.Callaghan JJ, Insall JN, Greenwald AS, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, et al (2000) Mobile bearing knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 82:1020–1041Google Scholar
- 12.Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Cheal EJ, Stiehl JB, Walker SA (1997) In vivo femoral condylar lift-off in total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Trans 21:1112Google Scholar
- 16.Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB (2003) Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 416:37–57Google Scholar
- 17.Dennis DA, Komistek RD (2003) Evaluation of range of motion after PFC Sigma posterior stabilized rotating platform total knee arthroplasty. Internal Report at the Rocky Mountain Musculoskeletal Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
- 23.Haas BD, Komistek RD, Dennis DA (2002) In vivo kinematics of the low contact stress rotating platform total knee. Orthopedics 25[Suppl 2]: 219–26Google Scholar
- 25.Haas BD, Komistek RD, Kilgus D, Smith A, Hammill C, Walker SA (2005) Polyethylene bearing motion relative to the tibia and the femur in mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty (submitted for publication)Google Scholar
- 26.Haas B, Komistek RD, Dennis DA (1999) In vivo kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate sacrificing and stabilized mobile total bearing knee arthroplasty. (Unpublished data, Rocky Mountain Musculoskeletal Research Laboratory; Denver, CO)Google Scholar
- 28.Hoff WA, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Walker SA, Northcut EJ, Spargo K (1996) Pose estimation of artificial knee implants in fluoroscopy images using a template matching technique. Proc. 3rd Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision, IEEE, Sarasota, FL, Dec. 2–4, pp 181–186Google Scholar
- 41.Mahfouz MR (2001) In vivo estimation of six degrees of freedom position and orientation for non-implanted human joints from single plane fluoroscopy. PhD Dissertation, Colorado School of Mines, Engineering, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
- 44.Miller GJ, Perry W, Goll C (1995) Congruency and varus/valgus loading effect on prosthetic knee contact stress. Combined Orthopedic Research Society (English Speaking World), San Diego, CA, Nov 6–8Google Scholar
- 45.Muller W (1983) The knee. Form, function and ligament reconstruction: kinematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 8–17Google Scholar
- 46.Murphy M (1990) Geometry and the kinematics of the normal human knee. Ph.D. thesis, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
- 47.Murphy MC, Zarins B, Jasty M, Mann RW (1995) In vivo measurement of the three-dimensional skeletal motion at the normal knee. Trans Orthop Res Soc, p 142Google Scholar
- 51.O’Connor J, Shercliff T, Fitzpatrick D, Biden E, Goodfellow J (1990) Mechanics of the knee, In: Daniel DM, Akeson WH, O’Connor JJ (eds) Knee ligaments: structures, function, injury and repair. Raven, New York, pp 201–237Google Scholar
- 52.Oakshott R, Komistek RD, Anderson DT, Haas BD, Dennis DA (2000) In vivo passive vs weight-bearing knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a mobile bearing that can freely translate and rotate. Internal report at Rocky Mountain Musculoskeletal Research LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
- 55.Ranawat CS, Komistek RD, Rodriguez JA, Dennis DA, Anderle M (2004) In vivo kinematics for fixed and mobile-bearing posterior stabilized knee prostheses. Clin Orthop 419:1–7Google Scholar
- 57.Sarojak ME (1998) Model-fit: an interactive pose-determining system. Engineering thesis, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
- 59.Stiehl JB, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Paxson RD (1995) Fluoroscopic analysis of kinematics after posterior-cruciate-retaining knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 77:884–889Google Scholar