Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing navigation-based in vivo knee kinematics pre- and postoperatively between a cruciate-retaining and a cruciate-substituting implant

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Individual physiological knee kinematics are highly variable in normal knees and are altered following cruciate-substituting (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We wanted to know whether knee kinematics are different choosing two different knee designs, CR and PS TKA, during surgery using computer navigation.

Methods

For this purpose, 60 consecutive TKA were randomised, receiving either CR (37 patients) or PS TKA (23 patients). All patients underwent computer navigation, and kinematics were assessed prior to making any cuts or releases and after implantation. Outcome measures were relative rotation between femur and tibia, measured medial and lateral gaps and medial and lateral condylar lift-off.

Results

We were not able to demonstrate a significant difference in femoral external rotation between either group prior to implantation (7.9° CR vs. 7.4° PS) or after implantation (9.0° CR vs. 11.3° PS), both groups showed femoral roll-back. It significantly increased pre- to postoperatively in PS TKA. In the CR group both gaps increased, the change of the medial gap was significantly attributable to medial release. In the PS group both gaps increased and the change of the medial and of the lateral gap was significant. Condylar lift-off was observed in the CR group during 20° and 60° of flexion.

Conclusion

This study did not reveal significant differences in navigation-based knee kinematics between CR and PS implants. Femoral roll-back was observed in both implant designs, but significantly increased pre- to postoperatively in PS TKA. A slight midflexion instability was observed in CR TKA. Intra-operative computer navigation can measure knee kinematics during surgery before and after TKR implantation and may assist surgeons to optimise knee kinematics or identify abnormal knee kinematics that could be corrected with ligament releases to improve the functional result of a TKR, whether it is a CR or PS design. Our intra-operative finding needs to be confirmed using fluoroscopic or radiographic 3D matching after complete recovery from surgery.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:57–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lopez-Olivo MA, Landon GC, Siff SJ, Edelstein D, Pak C, Kallen MA, Stanley M, Zhang H, Robinson KC, Suarez-Almazor ME (2011) Psychosocial determinants of outcomes in knee replacement. Ann Rheum Dis 70:1775–1781

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Culliton SE, Bryant DM, Overend TJ, Macdonald SJ, Chesworth BM (2011) The Relationship Between Expectations and Satisfaction in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty

  4. Clarke HD, Scuderi GR (2003) Flexion instability in primary total knee replacement. J Knee Surg 16:123–128

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liu Y-L, Chen W-C, Yeh W-L, McClean CJ, Huang C-H, Lin K-J, Cheng C-K (2011) Mimicking anatomical condylar configuration into knee prosthesis could improve knee kinematics after TKA - A computational simulation. Clinical Biomechanics. Avon, Bristol

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moemans A (2002) Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Influence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:50–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Banks SA, Markovich GD, Hodge WA (1997) In vivo kinematics of cruciate-retaining and -substituting knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 12:297–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Massin P, Boyer P, Sabourin M (2011) Less femorotibial rotation and AP translation in deep-dished total knee arthroplasty. An intraoperative kinematic study using navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA

  9. Yue B, Varadarajan KM, Rubash HE, Li G (2012) In vivo function of posterior cruciate ligament before and after posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36:1387–1392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman MAR, Pinskerova V (2005) The movement of the normal tibio-femoral joint. J Biomech 38:197–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hill PF, Vedi V, Williams A, Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MA (2000) Tibiofemoral movement 2: the loaded and unloaded living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:1196–1198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Johal P, Williams A, Wragg P, Hunt D, Gedroyc W (2005) Tibio-femoral movement in the living knee. A study of weight bearing and non-weight bearing knee kinematics using “interventional” MRI. J Biomech 38:269–276

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Fitz W, Sodha S, Reichmann W, Minas T (2012) Does a modified gap-balancing technique result in medial-pivot knee kinematics in cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:91–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Suggs JF, Hanson GR, Park SE, Moynihan AL, Li G (2008) Patient function after a posterior stabilizing total knee arthroplasty: cam-post engagement and knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:290–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M (2003) In vivo fluoroscopic analysis of the normal human knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 69–81

  18. Mahfouz MR, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Hoff WA (2004) In vivo assessment of the kinematics in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(Suppl 2):56–61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Dennis DA, Mahfouz MR, Komistek RD, Hoff W (2005) In vivo determination of normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee kinematics. J Biomech 38:241–253

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Li G, Moses JM, Papannagari R, Pathare NP, DeFrate LE, Gill TJ (2006) Anterior cruciate ligament deficiency alters the in vivo motion of the tibiofemoral cartilage contact points in both the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1826–1834

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Casino D, Martelli S, Zaffagnini S, Lopomo N, Iacono F, Bignozzi S, Visani A, Marcacci M (2009) Knee stability before and after total and unicondylar knee replacement: in vivo kinematic evaluation utilizing navigation. J Orthop Res 27:202–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Walker SA, Tucker A (2004) A multicenter analysis of axial femorotibial rotation after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 180–189

  23. Sumino T, Gadikota HR, Varadarajan KM, Kwon Y-M, Rubash HE, Li G (2011) Do high flexion posterior stabilised total knee arthroplasty designs increase knee flexion? A meta analysis. Int Orthop 35:1309–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB (2003) Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 37–57

  25. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE Jr, Ranawat CS, Scott RD, Thornhill TS, Lapp MA (1998) In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 47–57

  26. Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J (2005) Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:646–655

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bertin KC, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Hoff WA, Anderson DT, Langer T (2002) In vivo determination of posterior femoral rollback for subjects having a NexGen posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:1040–1048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schmidt R, Komistek RD, Blaha JD, Penenberg BL, Maloney WJ (2003) Fluoroscopic analyses of cruciate-retaining and medial pivot knee implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 139–147

  29. Li G, Most E, Otterberg E, Sabbag K, Zayontz S, Johnson T, Rubash H (2002) Biomechanics of posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasty: an in vitro study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 214–225

  30. Li G, Zayontz S, DeFrate LE, Most E, Suggs JF, Rubash HE (2004) Kinematics of the knee at high flexion angles: an in vitro investigation. J Orthop Res 22:90–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Moynihan AL, Varadarajan KM, Hanson GR, Park S-E, Nha KW, Suggs JF, Johnson T, Li G (2010) In vivo knee kinematics during high flexion after a posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 34:497–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Walker SA, Cheal EJ, Stiehl JB (2001) Femoral condylar lift-off in vivo in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:33–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Schnurr C, Eysel P, König DP (2012) Is the effect of a posterior cruciate ligament resection in total knee arthroplasty predictable? Int Orthop 36:83–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mr Sven Buhk for his support and great convenience and work throughout the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Regensburg, Orthopaedic Surgery, Regensburg, Germany

    Clemens Baier, Hans-Robert Springorum, Jürgen Götz, Jens Schaumburger, Joachim Grifka & Johannes Beckmann

  2. University of Aachen, Orthopaedic Surgery, Aachen, Germany

    Christian Lüring

Authors
  1. Clemens Baier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hans-Robert Springorum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jürgen Götz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jens Schaumburger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Lüring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joachim Grifka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Johannes Beckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clemens Baier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baier, C., Springorum, HR., Götz, J. et al. Comparing navigation-based in vivo knee kinematics pre- and postoperatively between a cruciate-retaining and a cruciate-substituting implant. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 407–414 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1798-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-1798-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation