C Rivière1, F Iranpour2, S Harris2, E Auvinet2, A Aframian2, S Parratte3, J Cobb2. 1. MSK Lab, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London, W6 8RP London, UK. Electronic address: rivierech@gmail.com. 2. MSK Lab, Charing Cross Hospital, Imperial College London, W6 8RP London, UK. 3. Service de chirurgie orthopédique, hôpital Sainte-Marguerite, université Aix-Marseille, 13009 Marseille, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Kinematic (KA) and mechanical (MA) alignment techniques are two different philosophies of implant positioning that use the same TKA implants. This might generate differences in the resulting prosthetic trochleae parameters between the two techniques of alignment. Our study aim was to test the following hypotheses : (1) mechanically or kinematically aligned femoral implant understuffs the native trochlear articular surface and poorly restores the native groove orientation, and (2) the orientation of the prosthetic trochlear groove and trochlear fill are different between MA and KA. METHODS: Three-dimensional models of the femur were made from segmentation of preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans (MRIs) of ten subjects with isolated medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. In-house planning and analysis software kinematically and mechanically aligned a modern cruciate retaining femoral component and determined differences in parameters of the trochlear fit between native and prosthetic trochleae, and between KA and MA prosthetic trochleae. RESULTS: The MA prosthetic trochleae did not fill (understuffed) the entire length of the native medial facet and the proximal 70% of the native groove and lateral facet, and oriented the trochleae groove 8° more valgus than native. The KA prosthetic trochleae understuffed the proximal 70% of the native trochleae, and had a groove 6° more valgus than native. The KA trochleae understuffed the medial facet distally and oriented the groove 2° less valgus and 3° more internally rotated than the MA trochleae. CONCLUSION: MA and KA prosthetic trochleae substantially understuff and create a prosthetic groove more valgus compared to native trochlear anatomy, and they also differed between each other regarding trochleae stuffing and groove alignment. Although randomized trials have not shown differences in patellofemoral complications between KA and MA, a femoral component designed specifically for KA that more closely restores the native trochlear anatomy might improve patient reported satisfaction and function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2 controlled laboratory study.
INTRODUCTION: Kinematic (KA) and mechanical (MA) alignment techniques are two different philosophies of implant positioning that use the same TKA implants. This might generate differences in the resulting prosthetic trochleae parameters between the two techniques of alignment. Our study aim was to test the following hypotheses : (1) mechanically or kinematically aligned femoral implant understuffs the native trochlear articular surface and poorly restores the native groove orientation, and (2) the orientation of the prosthetic trochlear groove and trochlear fill are different between MA and KA. METHODS: Three-dimensional models of the femur were made from segmentation of preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans (MRIs) of ten subjects with isolated medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. In-house planning and analysis software kinematically and mechanically aligned a modern cruciate retaining femoral component and determined differences in parameters of the trochlear fit between native and prosthetic trochleae, and between KA and MA prosthetic trochleae. RESULTS: The MA prosthetic trochleae did not fill (understuffed) the entire length of the native medial facet and the proximal 70% of the native groove and lateral facet, and oriented the trochleae groove 8° more valgus than native. The KA prosthetic trochleae understuffed the proximal 70% of the native trochleae, and had a groove 6° more valgus than native. The KA trochleae understuffed the medial facet distally and oriented the groove 2° less valgus and 3° more internally rotated than the MA trochleae. CONCLUSION: MA and KA prosthetic trochleae substantially understuff and create a prosthetic groove more valgus compared to native trochlear anatomy, and they also differed between each other regarding trochleae stuffing and groove alignment. Although randomized trials have not shown differences in patellofemoral complications between KA and MA, a femoral component designed specifically for KA that more closely restores the native trochlear anatomy might improve patient reported satisfaction and function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2 controlled laboratory study.
Authors: Kaushik Hazratwala; William B O'Callaghan; Shilpa Dhariwal; Matthew P R Wilkinson Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 4.114
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