Cargando…

Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces

AIMS: Mid-level constraint designs for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are intended to reduce coronal plane laxity. Our aims were to compare kinematics and ligament forces of the Zimmer Biomet Persona posterior-stabilized (PS) and mid-level designs in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes under load...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kahlenberg, Cynthia A., Berube, Erin E., Xiang, William, Manzi, Joseph E., Jahandar, Hamidreza, Chalmers, Brian P., Cross, Michael B., Mayman, David J., Wright, Timothy M., Westrich, Geoffrey H., Imhauser, Carl W., Sculco, Peter K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10243059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37272302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.46.BJO-2023-0023.R1
_version_ 1785054350297530368
author Kahlenberg, Cynthia A.
Berube, Erin E.
Xiang, William
Manzi, Joseph E.
Jahandar, Hamidreza
Chalmers, Brian P.
Cross, Michael B.
Mayman, David J.
Wright, Timothy M.
Westrich, Geoffrey H.
Imhauser, Carl W.
Sculco, Peter K.
author_facet Kahlenberg, Cynthia A.
Berube, Erin E.
Xiang, William
Manzi, Joseph E.
Jahandar, Hamidreza
Chalmers, Brian P.
Cross, Michael B.
Mayman, David J.
Wright, Timothy M.
Westrich, Geoffrey H.
Imhauser, Carl W.
Sculco, Peter K.
author_sort Kahlenberg, Cynthia A.
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Mid-level constraint designs for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are intended to reduce coronal plane laxity. Our aims were to compare kinematics and ligament forces of the Zimmer Biomet Persona posterior-stabilized (PS) and mid-level designs in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes under loads simulating clinical exams of the knee in a cadaver model. METHODS: We performed TKA on eight cadaveric knees and loaded them using a robotic manipulator. We tested both PS and mid-level designs under loads simulating clinical exams via applied varus and valgus moments, internal-external (IE) rotation moments, and anteroposterior forces at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion. We measured the resulting tibiofemoral angulations and translations. We also quantified the forces carried by the medial and lateral collateral ligaments (MCL/LCL) via serial sectioning of these structures and use of the principle of superposition. RESULTS: Mid-level inserts reduced varus angulations compared to PS inserts by a median of 0.4°, 0.9°, and 1.5° at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion, respectively, and reduced valgus angulations by a median of 0.3°, 1.0°, and 1.2° (p ≤ 0.027 for all comparisons). Mid-level inserts reduced net IE rotations by a median of 5.6°, 14.7°, and 17.5° at 0°, 30°, and 90°, respectively (p = 0.012). Mid-level inserts reduced anterior tibial translation only at 90° of flexion by a median of 3.0 millimetres (p = 0.036). With an applied varus moment, the mid-level insert decreased LCL force compared to the PS insert at all three flexion angles that were tested (p ≤ 0.036). In contrast, with a valgus moment the mid-level insert did not reduce MCL force. With an applied internal rotation moment, the mid-level insert decreased LCL force at 30° and 90° by a median of 25.7 N and 31.7 N, respectively (p = 0.017 and p = 0.012). With an external rotation moment, the mid-level insert decreased MCL force at 30° and 90° by a median of 45.7 N and 20.0 N, respectively (p ≤ 0.017 for all comparisons). With an applied anterior load, MCL and LCL forces showed no differences between the two inserts at 30° and 90° of flexion. CONCLUSION: The mid-level insert used in this study decreased coronal and axial plane laxities compared to the PS insert, but its stabilizing benefit in the sagittal plane was limited. Both mid-level and PS inserts depended on the MCL to resist anterior loads during a simulated clinical exam of anterior laxity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(6):432–441.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10243059
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102430592023-06-07 Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces Kahlenberg, Cynthia A. Berube, Erin E. Xiang, William Manzi, Joseph E. Jahandar, Hamidreza Chalmers, Brian P. Cross, Michael B. Mayman, David J. Wright, Timothy M. Westrich, Geoffrey H. Imhauser, Carl W. Sculco, Peter K. Bone Jt Open Knee AIMS: Mid-level constraint designs for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are intended to reduce coronal plane laxity. Our aims were to compare kinematics and ligament forces of the Zimmer Biomet Persona posterior-stabilized (PS) and mid-level designs in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes under loads simulating clinical exams of the knee in a cadaver model. METHODS: We performed TKA on eight cadaveric knees and loaded them using a robotic manipulator. We tested both PS and mid-level designs under loads simulating clinical exams via applied varus and valgus moments, internal-external (IE) rotation moments, and anteroposterior forces at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion. We measured the resulting tibiofemoral angulations and translations. We also quantified the forces carried by the medial and lateral collateral ligaments (MCL/LCL) via serial sectioning of these structures and use of the principle of superposition. RESULTS: Mid-level inserts reduced varus angulations compared to PS inserts by a median of 0.4°, 0.9°, and 1.5° at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion, respectively, and reduced valgus angulations by a median of 0.3°, 1.0°, and 1.2° (p ≤ 0.027 for all comparisons). Mid-level inserts reduced net IE rotations by a median of 5.6°, 14.7°, and 17.5° at 0°, 30°, and 90°, respectively (p = 0.012). Mid-level inserts reduced anterior tibial translation only at 90° of flexion by a median of 3.0 millimetres (p = 0.036). With an applied varus moment, the mid-level insert decreased LCL force compared to the PS insert at all three flexion angles that were tested (p ≤ 0.036). In contrast, with a valgus moment the mid-level insert did not reduce MCL force. With an applied internal rotation moment, the mid-level insert decreased LCL force at 30° and 90° by a median of 25.7 N and 31.7 N, respectively (p = 0.017 and p = 0.012). With an external rotation moment, the mid-level insert decreased MCL force at 30° and 90° by a median of 45.7 N and 20.0 N, respectively (p ≤ 0.017 for all comparisons). With an applied anterior load, MCL and LCL forces showed no differences between the two inserts at 30° and 90° of flexion. CONCLUSION: The mid-level insert used in this study decreased coronal and axial plane laxities compared to the PS insert, but its stabilizing benefit in the sagittal plane was limited. Both mid-level and PS inserts depended on the MCL to resist anterior loads during a simulated clinical exam of anterior laxity. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(6):432–441. The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery 2023-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC10243059/ /pubmed/37272302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.46.BJO-2023-0023.R1 Text en © 2023 Author(s) et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/TDMThis is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
spellingShingle Knee
Kahlenberg, Cynthia A.
Berube, Erin E.
Xiang, William
Manzi, Joseph E.
Jahandar, Hamidreza
Chalmers, Brian P.
Cross, Michael B.
Mayman, David J.
Wright, Timothy M.
Westrich, Geoffrey H.
Imhauser, Carl W.
Sculco, Peter K.
Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces
title Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces
title_full Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces
title_fullStr Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces
title_full_unstemmed Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces
title_short Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces
title_sort posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical cadaveric analysis of laxity and collateral ligament forces
topic Knee
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10243059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37272302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.46.BJO-2023-0023.R1
work_keys_str_mv AT kahlenbergcynthiaa posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT berubeerine posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT xiangwilliam posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT manzijosephe posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT jahandarhamidreza posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT chalmersbrianp posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT crossmichaelb posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT maymandavidj posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT wrighttimothym posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT westrichgeoffreyh posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT imhausercarlw posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces
AT sculcopeterk posteriorstabilizedversusmidlevelconstraintpolyethylenecomponentsintotalkneearthroplastyabiomechanicalcadavericanalysisoflaxityandcollateralligamentforces