| Literature DB >> 29330345 |
K-T Kang1, Y-G Koh2, J Son1, O-R Kwon2, J-S Lee2, S K Kwon3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Posterior condylar offset (PCO) and posterior tibial slope (PTS) are critical factors in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A computational simulation was performed to evaluate the biomechanical effect of PCO and PTS on cruciate retaining TKA.Entities:
Keywords: Posterior condylar offset; Posterior tibial slope; Total knee arthroplasty
Year: 2018 PMID: 29330345 PMCID: PMC5805829 DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0143.R1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bone Joint Res ISSN: 2046-3758 Impact factor: 5.853
Material properties for finite element model
| Intact model | Total knee arthroplasty model | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Young's modulus (MPa) | Poisson's ratio | Young's modulus (MPa) | Poisson's ratio | ||
| Cartilage | 15 | 0.47 | × | ||
| Meniscus | 120 circumferential direction | 0.20 circumferential and radial direction | × | ||
| 20 axial and radial direction | 0.30 axial direction | × | |||
| CoCrMo alloy | × | 195 000 | 0.30 | ||
| UHMWPE | × | 685 | 0.47 | ||
| Ti6Al4V alloy | × | 117 000 | 0.30 | ||
| PMMA | × | 1940 | 0.40 | ||
| Stiffness (n) | Reference strain | Slack length (mm) | |||
| aACL | 5000 | 0.06 | 33.74 | × | |
| pACL | 5000 | 0.10 | 28.47 | × | |
| aPCL | 9000 | -0.10 | 33.81 | ○ | |
| pPCL | 9000 | -0.03 | 34.92 | ○ | |
| LCL | 4000 | 0.06 | 57.97 | ○ | |
| aMCL | 2500 | -0.02 | 86.54 | ○ | |
| iMCL | 3000 | 0.04 | 84.72 | ○ | |
| pMCL | 2500 | 0.05 | 51.10 | ○ | |
| PFL | 4000 | 0.06 | 43.54 | ○ | |
| OPL | 2000 | 0.07 | 80.21 | ○ | |
| lCAP | 2500 | 0.06 | 55.59 | ○ | |
| mCAP | 2500 | 0.08 | 60.13 | ○ | |
| ALS | 2000 | 0.06 | 31.69 | ○ | |
| aCM | 2000 | -0.27 | 37.53 | ○ | |
| pCM | 4500 | -0.06 | 34.48 | ○ | |
CoCrMo, cobalt chromium molybdenum alloy; UHMWPE, ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene; Ti6Al4V, titanium alloy; PMMA, poly (methyl methacrylate); ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; PCL, posterior cruciate ligament; LCL, lateral collateral ligament; MCL, medial collateral ligament; PFL, popliteofibular ligament; OPL, oblique popliteal ligament; CAP, posterior capsule; ALS, anterolateral structures; CM, deep medial collateral ligament; a, anterior; p, posterior; i, inferior; l, lateral; m, medial

Diagram showing the orientation of the total knee arthroplasty used in this study in the a) sagittal plane, b) coronal plane and c) transverse plane (PCO, posterior condylar offset; PTS, posterior tibial slope).

Schematic of the knee models with respect to change in a) posterior condylar offset (left) at anterior 3 mm (- 3 mm), (middle) 0 mm and (right) posterior 3 mm (+ 3 mm), and b) posterior tibial slope at - 3° and + 6°.

Graphs showing the comparison of a) posterior tibial translation and b) internal tibial rotation with previous experiments for total knee arthroplasty model. The error bars represent 1 standard deviation in the experiment.

Comparison of contact stress on the patellar button: a) with respect to different posterior condylar offset (PCO) in the posterior tibial slope (PTS) 6°; with respect to different PTS in the b) PCO - 3 mm, c) PCO 0 mm and d) PCO + 3 mm models.

Comparison of posterior cruciate ligament force: a) with respect to different posterior condylar offset (PCO) in the posterior tibial slope (PTS) 6°; with respect to different PTS in the b) PCO - 3 mm, c) PCO 0 mm and d) PCO + 3 mm models.

Comparison of patellar tendon force: a) with respect to different posterior condylar offset (PCO) in the posterior tibial slope (PTS) 6°; with respect to different PTS in the b) PCO - 3 mm, c) PCO 0 mm and d) PCO + 3 mm models.

Comparison of quadriceps force: a) with respect to different posterior condylar offset (PCO) in the posterior tibial slope (PTS) 6°; with respect to different PTS in the b) PCO - 3 mm, c) PCO 0 mm and d) PCO + 3 mm models.