Joseph T Lynch1, Jennie M Scarvell2, Catherine R Galvin3, Paul N Smith4, Diana M Perriman4. 1. The Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Australian National University, The Canberra Hospital, Building 6, Level 1, Garran, ACT, Australia. Joseph.lynch@anu.edu.au. 2. Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 3. College of Engineering and Computer Science, Australian National University, Acton, ACT, Australia. 4. The Trauma and Orthopaedic Research Unit, Australian National University, The Canberra Hospital, Building 6, Level 1, Garran, ACT, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Modern TKR prostheses are designed to restore healthy kinematics including high flexion. Kneeling is a demanding high-flexion activity. There have been many studies of kneeling kinematics using a plethora of implant designs but no comprehensive comparisons. Visualisation of contact patterns allows for quantification and comparison of knee kinematics. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether there are any differences in the kinematics of kneeling as a function of TKR design. METHODS: A search of the published literature identified 26 articles which were assessed for methodologic quality using the MINORS instrument. Contact patterns for different implant designs were compared at 90° and maximal flexion using quality-effects meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Twenty-five different implants using six designs were reported. Most of the included studies had small-sample sizes, were non-consecutive, and did not have a direct comparison group. Only posterior-stabilised fixed-bearing and cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing designs had data for more than 200 participants. Meta-analyses revealed that bicruciate-stabilised fixed-bearing designs appeared to achieve more flexion and the cruciate-retaining rotating-platform design achieved the least, but both included single studies only. All designs demonstrated posterior-femoral translation and external rotation in kneeling, but posterior-stabilised designs were more posterior at maximal flexion when compared to cruciate retaining. However, the heterogeneity of the mean estimates was substantial, and therefore, firm conclusions about relative behaviour cannot be drawn. CONCLUSION: The high heterogeneity may be due to a combination of variability in the kneeling activity and variations in implant geometry within each design category. There remains a need for a high-quality prospective comparative studies to directly compare designs using a common method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis Level IV.
PURPOSE: Modern TKR prostheses are designed to restore healthy kinematics including high flexion. Kneeling is a demanding high-flexion activity. There have been many studies of kneeling kinematics using a plethora of implant designs but no comprehensive comparisons. Visualisation of contact patterns allows for quantification and comparison of knee kinematics. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether there are any differences in the kinematics of kneeling as a function of TKR design. METHODS: A search of the published literature identified 26 articles which were assessed for methodologic quality using the MINORS instrument. Contact patterns for different implant designs were compared at 90° and maximal flexion using quality-effects meta-analysis models. RESULTS: Twenty-five different implants using six designs were reported. Most of the included studies had small-sample sizes, were non-consecutive, and did not have a direct comparison group. Only posterior-stabilised fixed-bearing and cruciate-retaining fixed-bearing designs had data for more than 200 participants. Meta-analyses revealed that bicruciate-stabilised fixed-bearing designs appeared to achieve more flexion and the cruciate-retaining rotating-platform design achieved the least, but both included single studies only. All designs demonstrated posterior-femoral translation and external rotation in kneeling, but posterior-stabilised designs were more posterior at maximal flexion when compared to cruciate retaining. However, the heterogeneity of the mean estimates was substantial, and therefore, firm conclusions about relative behaviour cannot be drawn. CONCLUSION: The high heterogeneity may be due to a combination of variability in the kneeling activity and variations in implant geometry within each design category. There remains a need for a high-quality prospective comparative studies to directly compare designs using a common method. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis Level IV.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contact patterns; Kneeling; Systematic review; Total knee replacement
Authors: Kathryn M Coughlin; Stephen J Incavo; Robert R Doohen; Kazuyoshi Gamada; Scott Banks; Bruce D Beynnon Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Suhail A R Doi; Jan J Barendregt; Shahjahan Khan; Lukman Thalib; Gail M Williams Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Catherine R Galvin; Diana M Perriman; Phillip M Newman; Joseph T Lynch; Paul N Smith; Jennie M Scarvell Journal: Knee Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: George R Hanson; Sang E Park; Jeremy F Suggs; Angela L Moynihan; Kyung W Nha; Andrew A Freiberg; Guoan Li Journal: J Orthop Sci Date: 2007-09-28 Impact factor: 1.601