Delphine Wautier1, Emmanuel Thienpont2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University Hospital Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. emmanuel.thienpont@uclouvain.be.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare different types of knee arthroplasty, in selected patients with a knee score above 80 points, for their post-operative changes in anteroposterior (AP) laxity and proprioception. METHODS: Four groups of each ten patients were tested for AP translation after different types of arthroplasty with a KT-1000 device at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. Proprioception of the joint was evaluated by joint position sense with three different tests. Clinical outcome of stability and proprioceptive testing was analysed by comparing the results of three (KSS, KOOS and FJS-12) patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMS) for each of the different implant types. RESULTS: Anteroposterior laxity was observed at 30° and 90° of flexion for the two PS TKA designs included in this study, but not for the UKA or the medial pivot design. All knee designs, except UKA, had an increased laxity at 60° of flexion. Proprioceptive testing was inconclusive. PROMS were not able to identify differences in clinical outcome among different knee designs in these selected patients, despite observed differences in AP laxity. CONCLUSION: Increased AP laxity is a result of the surgical procedure in knee arthroplasty. UKA is the only design mimicking native laxity of the knee. A medial pivot design can obtain the same result as UKA at 30° and 90° of flexion, but not at the importantly cited 60° of flexion as tested under non-load-bearing conditions. The clinical relevance of this study is that despite of an important range of AP translations among the different knee designs, good-to-excellent patient-reported outcome was observed within the findings of this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
PURPOSE: To compare different types of knee arthroplasty, in selected patients with a knee score above 80 points, for their post-operative changes in anteroposterior (AP) laxity and proprioception. METHODS: Four groups of each ten patients were tested for AP translation after different types of arthroplasty with a KT-1000 device at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. Proprioception of the joint was evaluated by joint position sense with three different tests. Clinical outcome of stability and proprioceptive testing was analysed by comparing the results of three (KSS, KOOS and FJS-12) patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMS) for each of the different implant types. RESULTS: Anteroposterior laxity was observed at 30° and 90° of flexion for the two PS TKA designs included in this study, but not for the UKA or the medial pivot design. All knee designs, except UKA, had an increased laxity at 60° of flexion. Proprioceptive testing was inconclusive. PROMS were not able to identify differences in clinical outcome among different knee designs in these selected patients, despite observed differences in AP laxity. CONCLUSION: Increased AP laxity is a result of the surgical procedure in knee arthroplasty. UKA is the only design mimicking native laxity of the knee. A medial pivot design can obtain the same result as UKA at 30° and 90° of flexion, but not at the importantly cited 60° of flexion as tested under non-load-bearing conditions. The clinical relevance of this study is that despite of an important range of AP translations among the different knee designs, good-to-excellent patient-reported outcome was observed within the findings of this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Christopher J Arellano; Charles S Layne; Daniel P O'Connor; Melissa Scott-Pandorf; Max J Kurz Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Roland Becker; Christian Mauer; Christian Stärke; Mathias Brosz; Thore Zantop; Christoph H Lohmann; Martin Schulze Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Thomas Jan Heyse; Christoph Becher; Nadine Kron; Sven Ostermeier; Christof Hurschler; Markus D Schofer; Susanne Fuchs-Winkelmann; Carsten O Tibesku Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Kars P Valkering; Stefan J Breugem; Michel Pj van den Bekerom; Willem E Tuinebreijer; Rutger C I van Geenen Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Hannah A Wilson; Rob Middleton; Simon G F Abram; Stephanie Smith; Abtin Alvand; William F Jackson; Nicholas Bottomley; Sally Hopewell; Andrew J Price Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-02-21