Discharging the medial knee compartment: comparison of pressure distribution and kinematic shifting after implantation of an extra-capsular absorber system (ATLAS) and open-wedge high tibial osteotomy—a biomechanical in vitro analysis

PURPOSE: Young and active patients suffering early degenerative changes of the medial compartment with an underlying straight-leg axis do face a therapeutical gap as unloading of the medial compartment cannot be achieved by high tibial osteotomy. Extracapsular absorbing implants were developed to close this existing therapeutical gap. Purpose of the present cadaveric biomechanical study was to compare the unloading effect of the knee joint after implantation of an extra-articular absorber system (ATLAS) in comparison to open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OW-HTO) under physiological conditions. The hypothesis of the study was that implantation of an extra-capsular absorber results in an unloading effect comparable to the one achievable with OW-HTO. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were tested under isokinetic flexion–extension motions and physiological loading using a biomechanical knee simulator. Tibiofemoral area contact and peak contact pressures were measured using pressure-sensitive film in the untreated medial compartment. The tibiofemoral superior–inferior, latero-medial translation and varus/valgus rotation were measured with a 3D tracking system Polaris. Pressures and kinematics changes were measured after native testing, ATLAS System implantation and OW-HTO (5° and 10° correction angles) performed with an angular stable internal fixator (TomoFix). RESULTS: The absorber device decreased the pressure in the medial compartment near full extension moments. Implantation of the ATLAS absorbing system according to the manufacturers’ instruction did not result in a significant unloading effect. Deviating from the surgery manual provided by the manufacturer the implantation of a larger spring size while applying varus stress before releasing the absorber resulted in a significant pressure diminution. Contact pressure decreased significantly Δ0.20 ± 0.04 MPa p = 0.044. Performing the OW-HTO in 5° correction angle resulted in significant decreased contact pressure (Δ0.25 ± 0.10 MPa, p = 0.0036) and peak contact pressure (Δ0.39 ± 0.38 MPa, p = 0.029) compared with the native test cycle. With a 10° correction angle, OW-HTO significantly decreased area contact pressure by Δ0.32 ± 0.09 MPa, p = 0.006 and peak contact pressure by Δ0.48 ± 0.12 MPa, p = 0.0654 compared to OW-HTO 5°. Surgical treatment did not result in kinematic changes regarding the superior–inferior translation of the medial joint section. A significant difference was observed for the translation towards the lateral compartment for the ATLAS system Δ1.31 ± 0.54 MPa p = 0.022 and the osteotomy Δ3.51 ± 0.92 MPa p = 0.001. Furthermore, significant shifting varus to valgus rotation of the treated knee joint was verified for HTO 5° about Δ2.97–3.69° and for HTO 10° Δ4.11–5.23° (pHTO 5 = 0.0012; pHTO 10 = 0.0007) over the entire extension cycle. CONCLUSION: OW-HTO results in a significant unloading of the medial compartment. Implantation of an extra-capsular absorbing device did not result in a significant unloading until the implantation technique was applied against the manufacturer’s recommendation. While the clinical difficulty for young and active patients with straight-leg axis and early degenerative changes of the medial compartment persists further biomechanical research to develop sufficient unloading devices is required.