Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Muscle activity around the knee and gait performance in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients: a comparative study on fixed- and mobile-bearing designs

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers clinical and functional advantages over total knee arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to compare the functional recovery of patients with mobile UKA versus fixed-bearing designs by state-of-the-art gait analysis and, in particular, by assessing muscular activity.

Methods

Ten patients with the Oxford (mobile bearing) and ten patients with Optetrak (fixed bearing) UKA were evaluated at a minimum follow-up of 1 year post-operatively by gait analysis, which includes the main time–distance parameters, kinematics and kinetics of the replaced knee, and muscular activity of the main relevant muscles. Twenty healthy young subjects were used as controls.

Results

The mean International Knee Society score was 92.7 ± 11.2 for all 20 UKA knees; for the Oxford UKA, it was 94.1 ± 9.5; and for the Optetrak UKA, it was 91.5 ± 12.9, although follow-up was significantly lower for the latter. Time–distance parameters showed a slower gait in both groups compared with that of controls, and the Oxford group had values closer to the controls. Knee joint flexion was similar to that of controls at initial contact and loading response with no differences between groups. In all patients, the joint moments were smaller to that of controls. Residual abnormalities such as the prolonged rectus femoris activity were present in both designs, and the only difference distinguishing the Optetrak group from the others was the combined co-contraction of the hamstrings.

Conclusions

A good restoration of gait was achieved by most unicompartmental knee patients independently of the UKA design, although some abnormalities persisted in muscle activity around the knee.

Level of evidence

Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Argenson JN, Komistek RD, Aubaniac JM, Dennis DA, Northcut EJ, Anderson DT, Agostini S (2002) In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:1049–1054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Banks SA, Fregly BJ, Boniforti F, Reinschmidt C, Romagnoli S (2005) Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:551–556

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benedetti MG, Catani F, Bilotta TW, Marcacci M, Mariani E, Giannini S (2003) Muscle activation pattern and gait biomechanics after total knee replacement. Clin Biomech 18:871–876

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Benedetti MG, Catani F, Leardini A, Pignotti E, Giannini S (1998) Data management in gait analysis for clinical applications. Clin Biomech 13:204–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonato P, Knaflitz M, D’Alessio T (1998) A statistical method for the measurement of muscle activation intervals from surface myoelectric signal during gait. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45:287–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Borjesson M, Weidenhielm L, Mattsson E, Olsson E (2005) Gait and clinical measurement in patients with knee osteoarthritis after surgery: a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Knee 12:121–127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Borus T, Thornhill T (2008) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:9–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chassin EP, Mikosz RP, Andriacchi TP, Rosenberg AG (1996) Functional analysis of cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11:553–559

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Collier MB, Anderson Engh C, McAuley JP, Engh GA (2007) Factors associated with the loss of thickness of polyethylene tibial bearing after knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1306–1314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Pullen C (2004) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed tibial bearing unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a prospective randomized trial using a dedicated outcome score. Knee 11:357–362

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Emerson RH, Hansborought T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL (2002) Comparison of a mobile with a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:62–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher DA, Dalury DF, Adams MJ, Shipps MR, Davis K (2010) Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in the over 70 population. Orthopedics 33(9):668

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fuchs S, Tibesku CO, Frisse D, Genkinger M, Laaß H, Rosenbaum D (2005) Clinical and functional comparison of uni- and bicondylar sledge prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13:197–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fuchs S, Frisse D, Laass H, Thorwesten L, Tibesku CO (2004) Muscle strength in patients with unicompartmental arthroplasty. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 83:650–654

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH (2004) Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Sci Direct 11:379–384

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanson GR, Moynihan AL, Suggs JF, Kwon YM, Johnson T, Li G (2009) Kinematics of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty: an in vivo investigation. J Knee Surg 22:237–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rational of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jefferson RJ, Whittle MW (1989) Biomechanical assessment of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, total condylar arthroplasty and tibial osteotomy. Clin Biomech 4:232–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kleijn LL, van Hemert WL, Meijers WG, Kester AD, Lisowski L, Grimm B, Heyligers IC (2007) Functional improvement after unicompartmental knee replacement: a follow-up study with a performance based knee test. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:1187–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kozinn SC, Scott RD (1989) Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71A:145–150

    Google Scholar 

  21. Leardini A, Sawacha Z, Paolini G et al (2007) A new anatomically based protocol for gait analysis in children. Gait Posture 26:560–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D (2006) Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee 13:365–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Lindstrom M, Fellander-Tsai L, Wredmark T, Henriksson M (2010) Adaptations of gait and muscle activation in chronic ACL deficiency. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:106–114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Manca M, Leardini A, Cavazza S, Ferraresi G, Marchi P, Zanaga E, Benedetti MG (2010) Repeatability of a new protocol for gait analysis in adult subjects. Gait Posture 32:282–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mattsson E, Olsson E, Broström L-Å (1990) Assessment of walking before and after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Scand J Rehab Med 22:45–50

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. McClelland JA, Webster KE, Feller JA (2007) Gait analysis of patients following total knee replacement: a systematic review. Knee 14:253–263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Patil S, Colwell CW Jr, Ezzet KA, D’Lima DD (2005) Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:332–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Price AJ, Oppold PT, Murray DW, Zavatsky AB (2006) Simultaneous in vitro measurement of patellofemoral kinematics and forces following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:1591–1595

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Psychoyios V, Crawford RW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW (1998) Wear of congruent meniscal bearings in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80-B:876–882

    Google Scholar 

  30. Saccomanni B (2010) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a review of literature. Clin Rheumatol 29:339–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST (2009) Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:599–605

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Stevens-Lapsley JE, Balter JE, Kohrt WM, Eckhoff DG (2010) Quadriceps and hamstrings muscle dysfunction after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2460–2468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Suggs JF, Li G, Park SE, Sultan PG, Rubasi HE, Freiberg AA (2006) Knee biomechanics after UKA and its relation to the ACL-A robotic investigation. J Orthop Res 24:588–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Webster KE, Wittwer JE, Feller JA (2003) Quantitative gait analysis after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 6:751–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Weidenhielm L, Olsson E, Broström LA, Börjesson-Hederström M, Mattsson E (1993) Improvement in gait one year after surgery for knee osteoarthrosis: a comparison between high tibial osteotomy and prosthetic replacement in a prospective randomized study. Scand J Rehabil Med 25:25–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Weinstein JN, Andriacchi TP, Galante JO (1986) Factors influencing walking and stair climbing following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1:109–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Whittle MW, Jefferson RJ (1989) Functional biomechanics assessment of the Oxford meniscal knee. J Arthroplasty 4:231–243

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Fabio Catani, Luca Bianchi & Sandro Giannini

  2. Movement Analysis Laboratory, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, University of Bologna, Via di Barbiano 1/10, 40136, Bologna, Italy

    Maria Grazia Benedetti, Valentina Marchionni, Sandro Giannini & Alberto Leardini

Authors
  1. Fabio Catani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Grazia Benedetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luca Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valentina Marchionni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sandro Giannini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alberto Leardini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Grazia Benedetti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Catani, F., Benedetti, M.G., Bianchi, L. et al. Muscle activity around the knee and gait performance in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients: a comparative study on fixed- and mobile-bearing designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20, 1042–1048 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1620-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1620-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation