Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacements

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Preserving both cruciate ligaments in unicondylar knee arthroplasty likely provides more normal knee mechanics and contributes to enhanced patient function. It follows that preserving both cruciate ligaments with total knee arthroplasty should provide functional benefit compared to arthroplasty sacrificing one or both cruciates. The purpose of this study was to compare knee kinematics in patients with optimally functioning cruciate-preserving medial unicondylar and bi-unicondylar arthroplasty to determine if knee motions differed. Eight consenting patients with seven medial unicondylar and five bi-unicondylar arthroplasties were studied using lateral fluoroscopy during treadmill gait, stair stepping, and maximum flexion activities. Patient-specific geometric models based on CT and CAD data were used for shape matching to determine the three-dimensional knee kinematics. Tibiofemoral contact locations were computed for the replaced compartments. Maximum flexion in kneeling was 135°±14° for unicondylar knees and 123°±14° for bi-unicondylar knees (p=0.22). For 0°–30° flexion during the stair activity, the medial condyle translated posterior 3.5±2.5 mm in unicondylar knees and 4.7±1.9 mm in bi-unicondylar knees (p>0.05). Lateral posterior translation was 5.0±2.3 mm in bi-unicondylar knees for 0°–30° flexion. From heel-strike to mid-stance phase, there was little tibial rotation, but unicondylar knees showed 1.5±1.6 mm posterior translation of the medial condyle, while bi-unicondylar knees showed 5.1±2.2 mm (p<<0.05). The bi-unicondylar knees showed 3.8±3.4 mm posterior lateral condylar translation. Preserving both cruciate ligaments in knee arthroplasty appears to maintain some basic features of normal knee kinematics. Knees with bi-unicondylar arthroplasty showed kinematics closer to motions observed in total knee arthroplasty, slightly less weight-bearing flexion, and greater dynamic laxity in gait than unicondylar knees. Despite kinematic differences, knees with unicondylar and bi-unicondylar arthroplasty can provide excellent functional outcomes in appropriately selected patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Insall J, Walker P (1976) Unicondylar knee replacement. Clin Orthop (120):83–85

    Google Scholar 

  2. Goodfellow J, O’Connor J (1992) The anterior cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty. A risk-factor with unconstrained meniscal prostheses. Clin Orthop (276):245–252

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Svard UC, Price AJ (2001) Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series. J Bone Joint Surg 83-B(2):191–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Deschamps G, Lapeyre B (1987) Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: a frequently unrecognized cause of failure of unicompartmental knee prostheses. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 73(7):544–551

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hernigou P, Deschamps G (2004) Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 86-A(3):506–511

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chassin EP, Mikosz RP, Andriacchi TP, Rosenberg AG (1996) Functional analysis of cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11(5):553–559

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA, Northcut EJ, Anderson DT, Agostini S (2002) In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(8):1049–1054

    Google Scholar 

  8. Goodfellow JW, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop (205):21–42

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cloutier JM, Sabouret P, Deghrar A (1999) Total knee arthroplasty with retention of both cruciate ligaments. A nine to eleven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg 81-A(5):697–702

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Andriacchi TP, Galante JO, Fermier RW (1982) The influence of total knee-replacement design on walking and stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg 64-A(9):1,328–1,335

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pritchett JW (1996) Anterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11(2):194–197

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stiehl JB, Komistek RD, Cloutier JM, Dennis DA (2000) The cruciate ligaments in total knee arthroplasty: a kinematic analysis of 2 total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 15(5):545–550

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Komistek RD, Allain J, Anderson DT, Dennis DA, Goutallier D (2002) In vivo kinematics for subjects with and without an anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop (404):315–325

    Google Scholar 

  14. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop (248):13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Banks SA, Hodge WA (1996) Accurate measurement of three-dimensional knee replacement kinematics using single-plane fluoroscopy. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 43(6):638–649

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Canny J (1986) A computational approach to edge detection, IEEE Trans PAMI 8(6):679–698

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tupling S, Pierrynowski M (1987) Use of Cardan angles to locate rigid bodies in three-dimensional space. Med Biol Eng Comput 25(5): 527–532

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Scott RD, Cobb AG, McQueary FG, Thornhill TS (1991) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 12-year follow-up evaluation with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop (271):96–100

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneuker H, Moermans A (2002) Fluoroscopic analysis of deep flexion kinematics in total knee arthroplasty: the influence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg 84-B:50–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Banks SA, Bellemans J, Nozaki H et al (2003) Knee motions during maximum flexion in fixed and mobile-bearing arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 410:131–138

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MAR (2000) Tibio-femoral movement. 1. The shapes and relative movements of the femur and tibia in the unloaded cadaver knee. J Bone Joint Surg 82-B:1189–1195

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hill PF, Vedi V, Williams A, Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MAR (2000) Tibiofemoral movement. 2. The loaded and unloaded living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg 82-B:1,196–1,198

    Google Scholar 

  23. Blankevoort L, Huiskes R, de Lange A (1988) The envelope of passive knee joint motion. J Biomech 21(9):705–720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Banks SA, Markovich GD, Hodge WA (1997) The mechanics of knee replacements during gait. In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of two designs. Am J Knee Surg 10(4):261–267

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Banks SA, Hodge WA (2004) 2003 Hap Paul Award paper of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty. Design and activity dependence of kinematics in fixed and mobile bearing knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 19(7):809–816

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by a project grant from Centerpulse Orthopedics Ltd, a Zimmer Company, Winterthur, Switzerland. The authors thank The BioMotion Foundation and the University of Florida for additional financial support. The authors thank Aarti Asnani, Anne Banks, Emily Downs, Lawrence McKinney, and Haseeb Rahman for their assistance with data processing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, P.O. Box 116250, Gainesville, FL 32611-6250, USA

    Scott A. Banks

  2. The BioMotion Foundation, West Palm Beach, FL, USA

    Scott A. Banks

  3. Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

    Benjamin J. Fregly

  4. Centro Chirurgia Protesica, Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy

    Filippo Boniforti & Sergio Romagnoli

  5. Centerpulse Orthopedics Ltd, a Zimmer Company, Winterthur, Switzerland

    Christoph Reinschmidt

Authors
  1. Scott A. Banks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin J. Fregly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Filippo Boniforti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christoph Reinschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sergio Romagnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott A. Banks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Banks, S.A., Fregly, B.J., Boniforti, F. et al. Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13, 551–556 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0565-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-004-0565-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation