Alexander Glogaza1, Christian Schröder2, Matthias Woiczinski2, Peter Müller2, Volkmar Jansson2, Arnd Steinbrück2. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. alexander.glogaza@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patellofemoral kinematics and retropatellar pressure distribution change after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that different TKA designs will show altered retropatellar pressure distribution patterns and different patellofemoral kinematics according to their design characteristics. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen knee specimens were tested dynamically in a knee rig. Each specimen was measured native, after TKA with a posterior stabilized design (PS) and after TKA with a medial stabilized design (MS). Retropatellar pressure distribution was measured using a pressure sensitive foil which was subdivided into three areas (lateral and medial facet and patellar ridge). Patellofemoral kinematics were measured by an ultrasonic-based three-dimensional motion system (Zebris CMS20, Isny Germany). RESULTS: Significant changes in patellofemoral kinematics and retropatellar pressure distribution were found in both TKA types when compared to the native situation. Mean retropatellar contact areas were significantly smaller after TKA (native: 241.1 ± 75.6 mm2, MS: 197.7 ± 74.5 mm2, PS: 181.2 ± 56.7 mm2, native vs. MS p < 0.001; native vs. PS p < 0.001). The mean peak pressures were significantly higher after TKA. The increased peak pressures were however seen in different areas: medial and lateral facet in the PS-design (p < 0.001), ridge in the MS design (p < 0.001). Different patellofemoral kinematics were found in both TKA designs when compared to the native knee during flexion and extension with a more medial patella tracking. CONCLUSION: Patellofemoral kinematics and retropatellar pressure change after TKA in different manner depending on the type of TKA used. Surgeons should be aware of influencing the risks of patellofermoral complications by the choice of the prosthesis design.
PURPOSE: Patellofemoral kinematics and retropatellar pressure distribution change after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that different TKA designs will show altered retropatellar pressure distribution patterns and different patellofemoral kinematics according to their design characteristics. METHODS: Twelve fresh-frozen knee specimens were tested dynamically in a knee rig. Each specimen was measured native, after TKA with a posterior stabilized design (PS) and after TKA with a medial stabilized design (MS). Retropatellar pressure distribution was measured using a pressure sensitive foil which was subdivided into three areas (lateral and medial facet and patellar ridge). Patellofemoral kinematics were measured by an ultrasonic-based three-dimensional motion system (Zebris CMS20, Isny Germany). RESULTS: Significant changes in patellofemoral kinematics and retropatellar pressure distribution were found in both TKA types when compared to the native situation. Mean retropatellar contact areas were significantly smaller after TKA (native: 241.1 ± 75.6 mm2, MS: 197.7 ± 74.5 mm2, PS: 181.2 ± 56.7 mm2, native vs. MS p < 0.001; native vs. PS p < 0.001). The mean peak pressures were significantly higher after TKA. The increased peak pressures were however seen in different areas: medial and lateral facet in the PS-design (p < 0.001), ridge in the MS design (p < 0.001). Different patellofemoral kinematics were found in both TKA designs when compared to the native knee during flexion and extension with a more medial patella tracking. CONCLUSION: Patellofemoral kinematics and retropatellar pressure change after TKA in different manner depending on the type of TKA used. Surgeons should be aware of influencing the risks of patellofermoral complications by the choice of the prosthesis design.
Authors: Douglas A Dennis; Richard D Komistek; Mohamed R Mahfouz; Brian D Haas; James B Stiehl Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Thomas Jan Heyse; Christoph Becher; Nadine Kron; Sven Ostermeier; Christof Hurschler; Markus D Schofer; Carsten O Tibesku; Susanne Fuchs-Winkelmann Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2009-07-04 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Marcos V Katchburian; Anthony M J Bull; Yi-Fen Shih; Frederick W Heatley; Andrew A Amis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Stefan J M Breugem; Bas van Ooij; Daniël Haverkamp; Inger N Sierevelt; C Niek van Dijk Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-11-03 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: David Shervin; Katelyn Pratt; Travis Healey; Samantha Nguyen; William M Mihalko; Mouhanad M El-Othmani; Khaled J Saleh Journal: World J Orthop Date: 2015-11-18
Authors: Arnd Steinbrück; Christian Schröder; Matthias Woiczinski; Andreas Fottner; Peter E Müller; Volkmar Jansson Journal: Biomed Eng Online Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 2.819
Authors: In Jun Koh; Il Jung Park; Charles C Lin; Nilay A Patel; Christen E Chalmers; Mauro Maniglio; Michelle H McGarry; Thay Q Lee Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-10-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Frank-David Øhrn; Øystein Gøthesen; Stein Håkon Låstad Lygre; Yi Peng; Øystein Bjerkestrand Lian; Peter L Lewis; Ove Furnes; Stephan M Röhrl Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.755