Literature DB >> 30986763

Comparison of finite helical axes of normal and anatomically designed prosthetic knees.

Shoji Konda1, Tetsuya Tomita2, Takaharu Yamazaki3, Kosaku Oda4, Mikio Nakajima5, Kunio Nakane6, Kenichi Kono7, Toshitaka Fujito2, Hideki Yoshikawa8, Kazuomi Sugamoto2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Describing three-dimensional joint motion using the finite helical axis has an advantage in understanding unknown coupling motion in prosthetic knee joints. We aimed to examine the differences in the orientations of finite helical axis of normal and anatomically designed cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized prosthetic knees after total knee arthroplasty.
METHODS: Ten normal, 40 cruciate-retaining prosthetic knees of 33 patients and 19 posterior-stabilized prosthetic knees of 14 patients enabling to flex > 120° were analyzed during a squatting motion with deep knee bending. The motion was recorded by a fluoroscopic imaging system, and the pose of the bone and prostheses were determined by an image registration technique. The finite helical axes were calculated using 30° window.
FINDINGS: The finite helical axis in the early flexion phase of the normal knees had a greater inferior inclination (mean - 19.0° (SD 7.2°)) than those of the cruciate-retaining (mean - 1.7 (SD 5.0°)) and posterior-stabilized (mean - 2.9° (SD 5.5°)) prosthetic knees (p < 0.001), and became almost horizontal and constant in the mid to deep flexion phases. In contrast, the cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized prosthetic knees demonstrated slightly inclined and almost constant vertical angles throughout the all phases.
INTERPRETATION: These results demonstrate that, in the normal knee, a clear coupling motion occurs during the early flexion phase. For the cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized prosthetic knees, an unclear coupling motion exists during all phases. These results suggest that the physiological motion is not possible to reproduce using shape-guided motion only even in an anatomically designed prosthetic knee.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomechanics; Kinematics; Total knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30986763     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.03.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  2 in total

1.  Kinematics of bicruciate stabilized and cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Teruya Ishibashi; Takaharu Yamazaki; Shoji Konda; Masashi Tamaki; Kazuomi Sugamoto; Tetsuya Tomita
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 3.102

2.  Differences in gait kinetics and kinematics between patients with rotating hinge knee and cruciate-retaining prostheses: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Takehiro Ohmi; Takumi Yamada; Sadaya Misaki; Tomohiro Tazawa; Ryota Shimamura; Junpei Kato; Kazutaka Sugimoto
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2022-09-01
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.