Pieter Berger1, Darshan S Shah2,3, Lennart Scheys4,2, Hilde Vandenneucker4,2, Orçun Taylan2, Josh Slane2, Ronny De Corte5. 1. Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. pieter.berger@uzleuven.be. 2. Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, 400076, India. 4. Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Smith and Nephew Orthopaedics, 1930, Zaventem, Belgium.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the existence of diverse total knee implant designs, few data is available on the relationship between the level of implant constraint and the postoperative joint stability in the frontal plane and strain in the collateral ligaments. The current study aimed to document this relation in an ex vivo setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six fresh-frozen lower limbs underwent imaging for preparation of specimen-specific surgical guides. Specimens were dissected and assessed for joint laxity using the varus-valgus stress tests at fixed knee flexion angles. A handheld dynamometer applied tensile loads at the ankle, thereby resulting in a knee abduction-adduction moment of 10 Nm. Tibiofemoral kinematics were calculated using an optical motion capture system, while extensometers attached to medial collateral (MCL) and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) measured strain. Native joint testing was followed by four TKA designs from a single implant line-cruciate retaining, posterior stabilised, varus-valgus constrained and hinged knee (HK)-and subsequent testing after each implantation. Repeated measures linear mixed-models (p < 0.05) were used to compare preoperative vs. postoperative data on frontal plane laxity and collateral ligament strain. RESULTS: Increasing implant constraint reduced frontal plane laxity across knee flexion, especially in deep flexion (r2 > 0.76), and MCL strain in extension; however, LCL strain reduction was not consistent. Frontal plane laxity increased with knee flexion angle, but similar trends were inconclusive for ligament strain. HK reduced joint laxity and ligament strain as compared to the native condition consistently across knee flexion angle, with significant reductions in flexion (p < 0.024) and extension (p < 0.001), respectively, thereby elucidating the implant design-induced joint stability. Ligament strain exhibited a strong positive correlation with varus-valgus alignment (r2 = 0.96), notwithstanding knee flexion angle or TKA implant design. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that increasing the constraint of a TKA resulted in lower frontal plane laxity of the knee. With implant features impacting laxity in the coronal plane, consequentially affecting strain in collateral ligaments, surgeons must consider these factors when deciding a TKA implant, especially for primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.
INTRODUCTION: Despite the existence of diverse total knee implant designs, few data is available on the relationship between the level of implant constraint and the postoperative joint stability in the frontal plane and strain in the collateral ligaments. The current study aimed to document this relation in an ex vivo setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six fresh-frozen lower limbs underwent imaging for preparation of specimen-specific surgical guides. Specimens were dissected and assessed for joint laxity using the varus-valgus stress tests at fixed knee flexion angles. A handheld dynamometer applied tensile loads at the ankle, thereby resulting in a knee abduction-adduction moment of 10 Nm. Tibiofemoral kinematics were calculated using an optical motion capture system, while extensometers attached to medial collateral (MCL) and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) measured strain. Native joint testing was followed by four TKA designs from a single implant line-cruciate retaining, posterior stabilised, varus-valgus constrained and hinged knee (HK)-and subsequent testing after each implantation. Repeated measures linear mixed-models (p < 0.05) were used to compare preoperative vs. postoperative data on frontal plane laxity and collateral ligament strain. RESULTS: Increasing implant constraint reduced frontal plane laxity across knee flexion, especially in deep flexion (r2 > 0.76), and MCL strain in extension; however, LCL strain reduction was not consistent. Frontal plane laxity increased with knee flexion angle, but similar trends were inconclusive for ligament strain. HK reduced joint laxity and ligament strain as compared to the native condition consistently across knee flexion angle, with significant reductions in flexion (p < 0.024) and extension (p < 0.001), respectively, thereby elucidating the implant design-induced joint stability. Ligament strain exhibited a strong positive correlation with varus-valgus alignment (r2 = 0.96), notwithstanding knee flexion angle or TKA implant design. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that increasing the constraint of a TKA resulted in lower frontal plane laxity of the knee. With implant features impacting laxity in the coronal plane, consequentially affecting strain in collateral ligaments, surgeons must consider these factors when deciding a TKA implant, especially for primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.
Authors: Kanishka M Ghosh; William A Manning; Alasdair P Blain; Steve P Rushton; Lee M Longstaff; Andrew A Amis; David J Deehan Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Robert F Laprade; Andrew S Bernhardson; Chad J Griffith; Jeffrey A Macalena; Coen A Wijdicks Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Nicola C Hunt; Kanishka M Ghosh; Alasdair P Blain; Kiron K Athwal; Steve P Rushton; Andrew A Amis; Lee M Longstaff; David J Deehan Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: William A Manning; Kanishka Ghosh; Alasdair Blain; Lee Longstaff; David John Deehan Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 4.342