Kinematic Characteristics of the Unicompartmental Knee

  • J. N. Argenson
  • R. D. Komistek
  • D. A. Dennis


Knee kinematics were analyzed in subjects with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during deep knee bend (DKB) and stance phase of gait, using video fluoroscopy. Femorotibial contact positions were determined using a computer-automated model-fitting technique. During DKB, subjects with medial UKA experienced on average −0.8 mm of posterior femoral roll-back (PFR), those with lateral UKA −2.5 mm. During stance phase of gait, subjects with medial UKA experienced on average 0.8 mm of PFR, those with lateral UKA −0.4 mm. During DKB normal axial rotation was found for two thirds of subjects (average = 3.3° and 11.2°, respectively, for medial and lateral UKA) and during stance phase of gait for half of the subjects with medial UKA and one quarter with lateral UKA (average of 0.9° and −6.0°, respectively). On average, subjects with UKA experienced kinematic patterns similar to those of the normal knee. The kinematic variability for some subjects suggests progressive laxity of the anterior cruciate ligament, which confirms its role for maintaining satisfactory knee kinematics in UKA.


Anterior Cruciate Ligament Stance Phase Unicompartmental Knee Arthro Normal Knee Polyethylene Wear 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Berger RA, Nedeff DD, Barden RM, Sheinkop MM, Jacobs JJ, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO (1999) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6-to 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop 367:50–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer RP (1996) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty surgery. 10-year minimum follow-up period. J Arthroplasty 11:782–788Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Argenson JN et al (2002) Modern cemented metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A 3-to 10-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 84:2235–2239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CAF, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW (2001) Rapid recovery after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty 16:970–976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palmer SH, Morrison PJ, Ross AC (1998) Early catastrophic tibial component wear after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 350:143–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Argenson JN, O’Connor JJ (1992) Polyethylene wear in meniscal knee replacement. A one-to nine-year retrieval analysis of the Oxford knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 74:228–232Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lafortune MA et al (1992) Three-dimensional kinematics of the human knee during walking. J Biomech 25:347–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dennis D et al (1998) In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop 356:47–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Komistek R et al (2000) An in vivo determination of patellofemoral contact positions. Clin Biomech 15:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dennis DA et al (1996) In vivo knee kinematics derived using an inverse perspective technique. Clin Orthop 331:107–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Argenson JN et al (2002) In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:1049–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Deschamps G, Lapeyre B (1987) Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: a frequently unrecognized cause of failure of unicompartmental knee prostheses. Rev Chir Orthop 73:544–551PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moller JT et al (1985) Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Cadaver study of the importance of the anterior cruciate ligament. Acta Orthop Scand 56:120–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blunn GW, Walker PS, Joshi A, Hardinge K (1991) The dominance of cyclic sliding in producing wear in total knee replacements. Clin Orthop 273:253–260PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. N. Argenson
  • R. D. Komistek
  • D. A. Dennis

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations