In Jun Koh1,2, Christen E Chalmers3, Charles C Lin4, Soo Bin Park5, Michelle H McGarry6, Thay Q Lee6. 1. Joint Replacement Center, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, 03312, Republic of Korea. oskoh74@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 1021, Tongil-ro, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. oskoh74@gmail.com. 3. School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, 92697, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, NY 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA. 5. Joint Replacement Center, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, Seoul, 03312, Republic of Korea. 6. Orthopaedic Biomechanics Laboratory, Congress Medical Foundation, 800 South Raymond Avenue, Pasadena, CA, 91105, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: As the goal of kinematic aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to preserve soft tissue tension to the native knee, many KA surgeons recommend cruciate-retaining (CR) prosthesis. However, how a posterior-stabilizing (PS) prosthesis affects the biomechanics of a KA TKA remains unclear. This cadaveric study tested the hypothesis that a PS prosthesis in KA TKA would produce biomechanics similar to CR prosthesis and KA TKA with a PS prosthesis would produce more native knee biomechanics than mechanical aligned (MA) TKA with PA prosthesis. METHODS: Fourteen cadaver knees (7 pairs) were mounted on a knee-testing system to measure knee motion during flexion. For each pair, 1 knee was assigned to KA TKA and the other to MA TKA. In the KA TKA group, the native knee, CR TKA, and PS TKA were tested sequentially. MA TKA was performed using conventional measured resection techniques with a PS prosthesis. All kinematics were measured and compared with the native knee before and after surgery. RESULTS: A PS prosthesis restored femoral rollback similar to a CR prosthesis. CR TKA showed less lateral rollback at knee flexion ≤ 60° than the native knee. There were no differences in soft tissue tensions among the native knee, CR, and PS prosthesis, except in varus tension at 30° of flexion. Varus tension of CR TKA was larger than those of PS TKA and the native knee after KA TKA with < 1 degree difference. Meanwhile, KA TKA achieved knee motion that was closer to the native knee than did MA TKA at ≥ 60° of flexion when using a PS prosthesis. There were no differences in soft tissue tension between KA-PS and MA-PS TKA. CONCLUSIONS: After KA TKA, a PS prosthesis affords similar femoral rollback and soft tissue tension when compared with a CR prosthesis. A PS TKA may be a feasible strategy for patients requiring a PS prosthesis when performing KA TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Laboratory study, I.
PURPOSE: As the goal of kinematic aligned (KA) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to preserve soft tissue tension to the native knee, many KA surgeons recommend cruciate-retaining (CR) prosthesis. However, how a posterior-stabilizing (PS) prosthesis affects the biomechanics of a KA TKA remains unclear. This cadaveric study tested the hypothesis that a PS prosthesis in KA TKA would produce biomechanics similar to CR prosthesis and KA TKA with a PS prosthesis would produce more native knee biomechanics than mechanical aligned (MA) TKA with PA prosthesis. METHODS: Fourteen cadaver knees (7 pairs) were mounted on a knee-testing system to measure knee motion during flexion. For each pair, 1 knee was assigned to KA TKA and the other to MA TKA. In the KA TKA group, the native knee, CR TKA, and PS TKA were tested sequentially. MA TKA was performed using conventional measured resection techniques with a PS prosthesis. All kinematics were measured and compared with the native knee before and after surgery. RESULTS: A PS prosthesis restored femoral rollback similar to a CR prosthesis. CR TKA showed less lateral rollback at knee flexion ≤ 60° than the native knee. There were no differences in soft tissue tensions among the native knee, CR, and PS prosthesis, except in varus tension at 30° of flexion. Varus tension of CR TKA was larger than those of PS TKA and the native knee after KA TKA with < 1 degree difference. Meanwhile, KA TKA achieved knee motion that was closer to the native knee than did MA TKA at ≥ 60° of flexion when using a PS prosthesis. There were no differences in soft tissue tension between KA-PS and MA-PS TKA. CONCLUSIONS: After KA TKA, a PS prosthesis affords similar femoral rollback and soft tissue tension when compared with a CR prosthesis. A PS TKA may be a feasible strategy for patients requiring a PS prosthesis when performing KA TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Laboratory study, I.