Duane J Collins1, Yasser H Khatib2, David A Parker3, Deanne E Jenkin4, Robert B Molnar5. 1. University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, 2747, Australia ; Nepean Clinical School, Sydney University, Sydney, 2747, Australia. 3. Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, 2065, Australia. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St George Hospital, Sydney, 2217, Australia. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, St George Hospital, Sydney, 2217, Australia ; St George Clinical School, University of NSW, Sydney, 2217, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of computer assisted joint replacement has facilitated precise intraoperative measurement of knee kinematics. The changes in "screw home mechanism" (SHM) resulting from Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) with different prostheses and constraints has not yet been accurately described. METHODS: A pilot study was first completed. Intraoperative kinematic data was collected two groups of 15 patients receiving different prostheses. RESULTS: On average, patients lost 5.3° of ER (SD = 6.1°). There was no significant difference between the prostheses or different prosthetic constraints. CONCLUSIONS: There significant loss of SHM after TKA. Further research is required to understand its impact on patient function.
BACKGROUND: The use of computer assisted joint replacement has facilitated precise intraoperative measurement of knee kinematics. The changes in "screw home mechanism" (SHM) resulting from Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) with different prostheses and constraints has not yet been accurately described. METHODS: A pilot study was first completed. Intraoperative kinematic data was collected two groups of 15 patients receiving different prostheses. RESULTS: On average, patients lost 5.3° of ER (SD = 6.1°). There was no significant difference between the prostheses or different prosthetic constraints. CONCLUSIONS: There significant loss of SHM after TKA. Further research is required to understand its impact on patient function.
Authors: Jennifer M Weiss; Philip C Noble; Michael A Conditt; Harold W Kohl; Seth Roberts; Karon F Cook; Michael J Gordon; Kenneth B Mathis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Aileen M Davis; Nizar N Mahomed; Kory D J Charron Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Vasiliki Kefala; Adam J Cyr; Michael D Harris; Donald R Hume; Bradley S Davidson; Raymond H Kim; Kevin B Shelburne Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2017-11 Impact factor: 5.411