Published in:
01-06-2011 | Knee
Patellofemoral kinematics in mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing posterior stabilised total knee replacements: a cadaveric study
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 6/2011
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
The aim was to compare the patellar kinematics in the normal knee, fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing total knee replacement (MB-TKR). The hypothesis that a mobile-bearing TKR has a more natural patellar movement was tested.
Methods
Computer navigation was used to track the patella in nine whole lower extremities in the natural knee and in the same knee with a posterior stabilised FB-TKR and a posterior stabilised MB-TKR from 0° to 90° flexion. The form and position of the trochlea in the natural knee and the patellar groove of the TKR femoral component was also analysed.
Results
There were no differences between the FB and MB-TKRs. But the patella in the TKRs at flexion angles of more than 50° had a more medial tilt compared to the natural knee. The patella of the natural knee tended to rotate externally with flexion, this was not seen in both TKR types. There were no significant differences in absolute mediolateral translation nor in translation relative to the patellar groove. During flexion, the patella lost contact with its groove earlier in the TKRs. The radius of the patellar groove of the femoral component was larger. The groove extended more superiorly and less far posteriorly, it was also positioned further laterally compared to the natural knee.
Conclusions
There are subtle kinematic differences in patellar tracking between the natural knee and a TKR presumably due to differences in the shape and position of the patellar groove. There are no kinematic differences in patellar movement between the FB- and MB-TKR.