Kenichi Kono1, Tetsuya Tomita2, Takaharu Yamazaki3, Keiji Iwamoto4, Masashi Tamaki2, Darryl D D'Lima5. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine Arthritis Research, The Scripps Research Institute, CA, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Biomaterial Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan. 3. Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering, Saitama Institute of Technology, Saitama, Japan. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Medical Center, Osaka, Japan. 5. Department of Molecular Medicine Arthritis Research, The Scripps Research Institute, CA, USA; Shiley Center for Orthopaedic Research and Education at Scripps Clinic, CA, USA. Electronic address: ddlima@scripps.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While patellar resurfacing can affect patellofemoral kinematics, the effect on tibiofemoral kinematics is unknown. We hypothesized that patellar resurfacing would affect tibiofemoral kinematics during deep knee flexion due to biomechanical alteration of the extensor mechanism. METHODS: We performed cruciate-retaining TKA in fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees (N = 5) and recorded fluoroscopic kinematics during deep knee flexion before and after the patellar resurfacing. To simulate deep knee flexion, cadaver knees were tested on a dynamic, quadriceps-driven, closed-kinetic chain simulator based on the Oxford knee rig design under loads equivalent to stair climbing. To measure knee kinematics, a 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional fluoroscopic registration technique was used. Component rotation, varus-valgus angle, and anteroposterior translation of medial and lateral contact points of the femoral component relative to the tibial component were calculated over the range of flexion. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in femoral component external rotation (before patellar resurfacing: 6.6 ± 2.3°, after patellar resurfacing: 7.2 ± 1.8°, p = 0.36), and less than 1° difference in femorotibial varus-valgus angle between patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing (p = 0.01). For both conditions, the medial and lateral femorotibial contact points moved posteriorly from 0° to 30° of flexion, but not beyond 30° of flexion. At 10° of flexion, after patellar resurfacing, the medial contact point was more anteriorly located than before patellar resurfacing. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential for alteration of the knee extensor biomechanics, patellar resurfacing had minimal effect on tibiofemoral kinematics. Patellar resurfacing, if performed adequately, is unlikely to affect postoperative knee function.
BACKGROUND: While patellar resurfacing can affect patellofemoral kinematics, the effect on tibiofemoral kinematics is unknown. We hypothesized that patellar resurfacing would affect tibiofemoral kinematics during deep knee flexion due to biomechanical alteration of the extensor mechanism. METHODS: We performed cruciate-retaining TKA in fresh-frozen human cadaveric knees (N = 5) and recorded fluoroscopic kinematics during deep knee flexion before and after the patellar resurfacing. To simulate deep knee flexion, cadaver knees were tested on a dynamic, quadriceps-driven, closed-kinetic chain simulator based on the Oxford knee rig design under loads equivalent to stair climbing. To measure knee kinematics, a 2-dimensional to 3-dimensional fluoroscopic registration technique was used. Component rotation, varus-valgus angle, and anteroposterior translation of medial and lateral contact points of the femoral component relative to the tibial component were calculated over the range of flexion. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in femoral component external rotation (before patellar resurfacing: 6.6 ± 2.3°, after patellar resurfacing: 7.2 ± 1.8°, p = 0.36), and less than 1° difference in femorotibial varus-valgus angle between patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing (p = 0.01). For both conditions, the medial and lateral femorotibial contact points moved posteriorly from 0° to 30° of flexion, but not beyond 30° of flexion. At 10° of flexion, after patellar resurfacing, the medial contact point was more anteriorly located than before patellar resurfacing. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential for alteration of the knee extensor biomechanics, patellar resurfacing had minimal effect on tibiofemoral kinematics. Patellar resurfacing, if performed adequately, is unlikely to affect postoperative knee function.
Authors: Adrian Sauer; Christoph Thorwaechter; Ingrid Dupraz; Allan Maas; Arnd Steinbrueck; Thomas M Grupp; Matthias Woiczinski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.996