| Literature DB >> 34917717 |
Kazuya Kaneda1, Yasuo Niki1, Yuji Kuroyanagi2, Shu Kobayashi1, Kengo Harato1, Yu Iwama1, Takeo Nagura3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes of kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (KA-TKA) have been reported as comparable or superior to those of mechanically aligned TKA (MA-TKA). However, cruciate-retaining prostheses have mostly been used for KA-TKA. This study used medial pivot knee prostheses for KA-TKA, and knee kinematics after KA-TKA were assessed and compared with those after MA-TKA.Entities:
Keywords: 2D-3D registration; Fluoroscopic analysis; Kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty; Medial pivot
Year: 2021 PMID: 34917717 PMCID: PMC8666599 DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2021.10.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arthroplast Today ISSN: 2352-3441
Demographic characteristics of patients.
| Variable | KA-TKA | MA-TKA | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of participants (male/female) | 6 (2/4) | 3 (0/3) | |
| No. of knees | 8 | 5 | |
| Age (y) | 76.3 ± 8.4 | 75.0 ± 1.0 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 26.2 ± 2.8 | 27.3 ± 3.5 | |
| Preoperative KSS score | |||
| Total knee score (180) | 78.8 ± 26.6 | 97.0 ± 15.7 | |
| Total activity score (100) | 43.8 ± 16.0 | 60.6 ± 16.3 | |
| Patient satisfaction score (40) | 17.6 ± 6.5 | 12.8 ± 2.7 | |
| mMPTA (°) | 83.6 ± 2.8 | 82.9 ± 2.9 | |
| HKA angle (°) | -12.7 ± 6.3 | -12.1 ± 7.7 |
BMI, body mass index; HKA, hip-knee-ankle angle; KSS, Knee Society Score.
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviations.
Values in parentheses indicate maximum score in each category.
Knee scores and radiographic implant positionings after TKA.
| Variable | KA-TKA | MA-TKA | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postoperative | |||
| Total knee score (180) | 130.5 ± 17.9 | 147.4 ± 15.5 | |
| Total activity score (100) | 67.6 ± 14.0 | 81.0 ± 6.7 | |
| Patient satisfaction score (40) | 27.3 ± 3.0 | 32.8 ± 8.2 | |
| HKA angle (°) | -3.00 ± 2.4 | -1.22 ± 3.5 | |
| Total knee score improvement rate (%) | 28.8 ± 15.2 | 28.0 ± 6.7 | |
| Total activity score improvement rate (%) | 23.9 ± 13.6 | 20.4 ± 10.8 | |
| Component angle | |||
| mLDFA (°) | 89.4 ± 2.5 | 91.0 ± 0.8 | |
| mMPTA (°) | 83.4 ± 1.8 | 90.1 ± 1.4 | |
| Femoral component flexion (°) | 1.89 ± 1.0 | 2.06 ± 1.3 | |
| Tibial posterior slope (°) | 87.0 ± 1.5 | 86.6 ± 2.0 |
HKA, hip-knee-ankle angle; mLDFA, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle; mMPTA, mechanical medial proximal tibial angle.
Values in parentheses indicate maximum score in each category.
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 1The closest point movements of the medial and lateral femoral components on the tibial coordinate axis according to knee flexion angle. (a) Anteroposterior translation of the medial contact point. (b) Anteroposterior translation of the lateral contact point. (c) Femoral component external rotation angle relative to tibial component. (d) Mediolateral translation of the femoral component. Positive values indicate lateral translation, and negative values indicate medial translation.
Comparison of femoral component positioning between KA-TKA and MA-TKA.
| Variable | KA-TKA | MA-TKA | Significance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anterior sliding | Medial (mm) | 0.17 ± 0.19 | 0.26 ± 0.33 | |
| Lateral (mm) | 1.09 ± 1.10 | 1.06 ± 1.02 | ||
| Posterior translation | Medial (mm) | 0.04 ± 1.01 | -0.67 ± 1.31 | |
| Lateral (mm) | 5.01 ± 3.86 | 0.02 ± 1.80 | ||
| Condylar liftoff | Medial (mm) | 0.99 ± 0.81 (1.86 ± 1.38) | 0.82 ± 0.33 (1.45 ± 0.66) | |
| Lateral (mm) | 1.12 ± 0.63 (1.88 ± 1.24) | 1.13 ± 1.24 (2.95 ± 4.21) | ||
| Total external rotation (°) | 7.67 ± 5.18 | 1.31 ± 3.30 |
Values are defined as change in femoral component translation from 0° to 30°.
Values are defined as change in femoral component translation from 0° to 100°.
Values are expressed as mean distance from the medial and lateral femoral condyles to the tibial tray from 0° to 100°. Maximum values are indicated in parentheses.
Values are defined as change in femoral component external rotation from 0° to 100°.
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2Kinematic path of the tibiofemoral contact point in KA-TKA and MA-TKA. Medial pivot pattern and degree of femoral external rotation relative to the tibia were more pronounced in KA-TKA than in MA-TKA.