Kinematic comparison between medially congruent and posterior-stabilized third-generation tka designs

19Citations
Citations of this article
19Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: This study compares knee kinematics in two groups of patients who have undergone primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using two different modern designs: medially congruent (MC) and posterior-stabilized (PS). The aim of the study is to demonstrate only minimal differences between the groups. Methods: Ten TKA patients (4 PS, 6 MC) with successful clinical outcomes were evaluated through 3D knee kinematics analysis performed using a multicamera optoelectronic system and a force platform. Extracted kinematic data included knee flexion angle at heel-strike (KFH), peak midstance knee flexion angle (MSKFA), maximum and minimum knee adduction angle (KAA), and knee rotational angle at heel-strike. Data were compared with a group of healthy controls. Results: There were no differences in preferred walking speed between MC and PS groups, but we found consistent differences in knee function. At heel-strike, the knee tended to be more flexed in the PS group compared to the MC group; the MSKFA tended to be higher in the PS group compared to the MC group. There was a significant fluctuation in KAA during the swing phase in the PS group compared to the MC group, PS patients showed a higher peak knee flexion moment compared to MC patients, and the PS group had significantly less peak internal rotation moments than the MC group. Conclusions: Modern, third-generation TKA designs failed to reproduce normal knee kinematics. MC knees tended to reproduce a more natural kinematic pattern at heel-strike and during axial rotation, while PS knees showed better kinematics during mid-flexion.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ghirardelli, S., Asay, J. L., Leonardi, E. A., Amoroso, T., Indelli, P. F., & Andriacchi, T. P. (2021). Kinematic comparison between medially congruent and posterior-stabilized third-generation tka designs. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk6010027

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free