Gerrit Bode1, Ferdinand Kloos2, Matthias J Feucht2, Benjamin Fleischer3, Norbert Südkamp2, Philipp Niemeyer2, Christoph Becher3. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Clinic of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Freiburg University Hospital, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79098, Freiburg, Germany. gerrit.bode@uniklinik-freiburg.de. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Clinic of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Freiburg University Hospital, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79098, Freiburg, Germany. 3. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The unloading effect of an extra-articular absorber system on the knee joint medial compartment was compared with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) under physiological conditions in vitro. METHODS: Seven fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were used to test isokinetic flexion-extension motions under physiological loading using a biomechanical knee simulator. Tibiofemoral area contact and peak contact pressures were measured using pressure-sensitive film in the untreated medial compartment. Pressures were measured after KineSpring System implantation and HTO (5° and 10° correction angles) performed with an angular-stable internal fixator (Tomofix). RESULTS: Implantation of the unloading device resulted in significantly decreased medial compartment area contact pressure (Δ0.02 ± 0.01 MPa, p = 0.001) and peak contact pressure (Δ0.3 ± 0.1 MPa, p = 0.001) compared with the first test cycle results in the untreated knee. HTO significantly decreased the pressure (p = 0.001). Compared with the first test cycle, HTO (5° correction angle) decreased the mean contact pressure by Δ0.03 ± 0.01 MPa and peak contact pressure by Δ0.3 ± 0.01 MPa. With a 10° correction angle, HTO decreased contact pressure by Δ0.04 ± 0.02 MPa and peak contact pressure by Δ0.4 ± 0.1 MPa compared with that at the 5° correction angle. CONCLUSION: Implantation of an extra-capsular unloading device resulted in a significant unloading effect on the medial compartment comparable to that achieved with HTO at 5° and 10° correction angles. Thus, implantation of an extra-articular, extra-capsular absorber could become the method of choice when treating patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis that cannot be adequately treated by HTO because of their straight-leg axis.
PURPOSE: The unloading effect of an extra-articular absorber system on the knee joint medial compartment was compared with high tibial osteotomy (HTO) under physiological conditions in vitro. METHODS: Seven fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were used to test isokinetic flexion-extension motions under physiological loading using a biomechanical knee simulator. Tibiofemoral area contact and peak contact pressures were measured using pressure-sensitive film in the untreated medial compartment. Pressures were measured after KineSpring System implantation and HTO (5° and 10° correction angles) performed with an angular-stable internal fixator (Tomofix). RESULTS: Implantation of the unloading device resulted in significantly decreased medial compartment area contact pressure (Δ0.02 ± 0.01 MPa, p = 0.001) and peak contact pressure (Δ0.3 ± 0.1 MPa, p = 0.001) compared with the first test cycle results in the untreated knee. HTO significantly decreased the pressure (p = 0.001). Compared with the first test cycle, HTO (5° correction angle) decreased the mean contact pressure by Δ0.03 ± 0.01 MPa and peak contact pressure by Δ0.3 ± 0.01 MPa. With a 10° correction angle, HTO decreased contact pressure by Δ0.04 ± 0.02 MPa and peak contact pressure by Δ0.4 ± 0.1 MPa compared with that at the 5° correction angle. CONCLUSION: Implantation of an extra-capsular unloading device resulted in a significant unloading effect on the medial compartment comparable to that achieved with HTO at 5° and 10° correction angles. Thus, implantation of an extra-articular, extra-capsular absorber could become the method of choice when treating patients with unicompartmental osteoarthritis that cannot be adequately treated by HTO because of their straight-leg axis.
Authors: Philipp Niemeyer; Hagen Schmal; Oliver Hauschild; Johanna von Heyden; Norbert P Südkamp; Wolfgang Köstler Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Stephen P Messier; Paul DeVita; Rachel E Cowan; Joseph Seay; Heather C Young; Anthony P Marsh Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Konrad Slynarski; Jacek Walawski; Robert Smigielski; Willem van der Merwe Journal: Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2019-09-23
Authors: Oliver S Grosser; Marcus Klutzny; Heiko Wissel; Dennis Kupitz; Michael Finger; Simone Schenke; Jan Wuestemann; Christoph H Lohmann; Christoph Hoeschen; Maciej Pech; Christian Staerke; Michael C Kreissl Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2021-02-17