Top

Published in:

01-08-2021 | Original Article

Two different posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA designs: navigator evaluation of intraoperative kinematic differences

Authors: G. M. Marcheggiani Muccioli, S. Fratini, T. Roberti Di Sarsina, S. Di Paolo, T. Ingrassia, A. Grassi, U. Cardinale, E. Cammisa, L. Bragonzoni, S. Zaffagnini

Published in: MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY | Issue 2/2021

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare two types of posterior-stabilized (PS) mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The hypothesis was that no major differences were going to be found among the two TKA designs.

Methods

Two cohorts of patients who were divided according to implant design (Cohort A, new design gradually reducing radius PS MB TKA; Cohort B, traditional dual-radius PS MB TKA) were analyzed by means of intraoperative navigation. All operations were guided by a non-image-based navigation system that recorded relative femoral and tibial positions in native and implanted knees during the following kinematic tests: passive range of motion (PROM), varus–valgus stress test at 0° and 30° (VV0, VV30) and anterior/posterior drawer test at 90° of flexion (AP90).

Results

There were no significative differences in kinematic tests between the two implants. Cohort A, however, showed a different post-implant trend for VV0 and VV30 that were lower than the pre-implant ones, as expected, while for Cohort B, the trend is opposite. However, the gradually reducing radius prosthesis (Cohort A) showed a trend of improving stability (29% compared to the preoperative status) in mid-flexion (VV30) which the traditional dual-radius design (Cohort B) would not. Moreover, we found no differences among postoperative results of the two TKA designs.

Conclusion

Despite design variations, no difference has been found among the prostheses in terms of PROM, rotations and translations. Both design kinematics did not show paradoxical external rotations, but an increase in femoral translation in mid-flexion without affecting the functioning of the prosthesis.

Level of evidence

II.

Baier C, Springorum HR, Götz J, Schaumburger J, Lüring C, Grifka J, Beckmann J (2013) Comparing navigation-based in vivo knee kinematics pre- and postoperatively between a cruciate-retaining and a cruciate-substituting implant. Int Orthop 37:407–414CrossRef

Bignozzi S, Lopomo N, Martelli S, Bruni D, Marcacci M (2008) Accuracy, reliability, and repeatability of navigation systems in clinical practice. Oper Techn Orthop 18:154–157CrossRef

Bignozzi S, Zaffagnini S, Akkawi I, Marko T, Bruni D, Neri MP, Colle F, Marcacci M (2014) Three different cruciate-sacrificing TKA designs: minor intraoperative kinematic differences and negligible clinical differences. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:3113–3120CrossRef

Bontempi M, Cardinale U, Bragonzoni L, Macchiarola L, Grassi A, Signorelli C, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Zaffagnini S (2017) Total knee replacement: intraoperative and postoperative kinematic assessment. Acta Biomedica 88:32–37PubMedPubMedCentral

Capella M, Dolfin M, Saccia F (2016) Mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 4:127CrossRef

Carey BW, Harty J (2018) A comparison of clinical- and patient-reported outcomes of the cemented ATTUNE and PFC sigma fixed bearing cruciate sacrificing knee systems in patients who underwent total knee replacement with both prostheses in opposite knees. J Orthop Surg Res 13:54CrossRef

Casino D, Zaffagnini S, Martelli S, Lopomo N, Bignozzi S, Iacono F, Russo A, Marcacci M (2009) Intraoperative evaluation of total knee replacement: kinematic assessment with a navigation system. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:369CrossRef

Clarke JV, Deakin AH, Picard F, Riches PE (2017) Lower limb alignment and laxity measures before, during and after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Clin Biomech 47:61–65CrossRef

Clary CW, Fitzpatrick CK, Maletsky LP, Rullkoetter PJ (2013) The influence of total knee arthroplasty geometry on mid-flexion stability: an experimental and finite element study. J Biomech 46:1351–1357CrossRef

10.

Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE, 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 356:47–57CrossRef

11.

Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J-Y (2004) Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg 86:963–974CrossRef

12.

Fantozzi S, Catani F, Ensini A, Leardini A, Giannini S (2006) Femoral rollback of cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee replacements: in vivo fluoroscopic analysis during activities of daily living. J Orthop Res 24:2222–2229CrossRef

13.

Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW, Rullkoetter PJ (2012) The role of patient, surgical, and implant design variation in total knee replacement performance. J Biomech 45:2092–2102CrossRef

14.

Fritzsche H, Beyer F, Postler A, Lützner J (2017) Different intraoperative kinematics, stability, and range of motion between cruciate-substituting ultracongruent and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1–6

15.

Grood ES, Suntay WJ (1983) A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng 105:136CrossRef

16.

Hino K, Kutsuna T, Watamori K, Ishimaru Y, Kiyomatsu H, Shiraishi Y, Miura H (2018) Bi-cruciate substituting total knee arthroplasty provides varus–valgus stability throughout the midflexion range. Knee 25:897–902CrossRef

17.

Huang C-H, Liau J-J, Cheng C-K (2007) Fixed or mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2:1CrossRef

18.

Indelli PF, Marcucci M, Pipino G, Charlton S, Carulli C, Innocenti M (2014) The effects of femoral component design on the patello-femoral joint in a PS total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:59–64CrossRef

19.

Kremers MH, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA, Jiranek WA, Berry DJ (2015) Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg 97:1386–1397CrossRef

20.

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 404:214–225CrossRef

21.

Martelli S, Zaffagnini S, Bignozzi S, Bontempi M, Marcacci M (2006) Validation of a new protocol for computer-assisted evaluation of kinematics of double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Clin Biomech 21:279–287CrossRef

22.

Nemes S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A, Garellick G, Sundberg M, Kärrholm J, Robertsson O (2015) Historical view and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden. Acta Orthop 86:426–431CrossRef

23.

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 Relat Res 418:184–190CrossRef

24.

Ranawat CS, White PB, West S, Ranawat AS (2017) Clinical and radiographic results of attune and PFC sigma knee designs at 2-year follow-up: a prospective matched-pair analysis. J Arthroplas 32:431–436CrossRef

25.

Singh JA (2011) Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J 5:80–85CrossRef

26.

Siston RA, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL (2006) Intraoperative passive kinematics of osteoarthritic knees before and after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 24:1607–1614CrossRef

27.

Tjørnild M, Søballe K, Hansen PM, Holm C, Stilling M (2015) Mobile- vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacement. Acta Orthop 86:208–214CrossRef

28.

Ünkar EA, Öztürkmen Y, Şükür E, Çarkçi E, Mert M (2017) Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turcica 51:95–99CrossRef

29.

Young KL, Dunbar MJ, Richardson G, Wilson JLA (2015) Intraoperative passive knee kinematics during total knee arthroplasty surgery. J Orthop Res 33:1611–1619CrossRef

Title: Two different posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA designs: navigator evaluation of intraoperative kinematic differences
Authors: G. M. Marcheggiani Muccioli
S. Fratini
T. Roberti Di Sarsina
S. Di Paolo
T. Ingrassia
A. Grassi
U. Cardinale
E. Cammisa
L. Bragonzoni
S. Zaffagnini
Publication date: 01-08-2021
Publisher: Springer Milan
Published in: MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 2035-5106
Electronic ISSN: 2035-5114
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-020-00643-1

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Two different posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA designs: navigator evaluation of intraoperative kinematic differences

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Comparison of efficacy of supraspinatus tendon tears diagnostic tests: a prospective study on the “full-can,” the “empty-can,” and the “Whipple” tests

Correction to: Hospitalization length, surgical duration, and blood lost among the approaches for total hip arthroplasty: a Bayesian network meta‑analysis

Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature

Paratricipital approach for distal humerus fractures

Arthroscopic electrothermal collagen shrinkage for partial scapholunate ligament tears, isolated or with associated triangular fibrocartilage complex injuries: a prospective study

Power-assisted pedicle screws placement: Is it as safe and as effective as manual technique? Narrative review of the literature and our technique