Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Motion type and knee articular conformity influenced mid-flexion stability of a single radius knee prosthesis

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

Abstract

Purpose

Single radius knee implants were introduced to reduce the level of paradoxical anterior femoral translation (AFT) during mid-flexion after total knee arthroplasty. Findings from clinical and experiment studies are inconsistent, which may be due to the different loading conditions and articular conformities of the knee implants studied. The aim of this study is to analyze how variations in these two factors affect the mid-flexion stability of a single radius knee prosthesis.

Methods

Six daily activities (walking, stair ascent, stair descent, sit-to-stand, pivot turn and crossover turn), and three articular conformity ratios (low, moderate and high) were considered. The resulting AFTs from the 18 finite element models were analyzed.

Results

For low conformity knees, the worst case activity (the greatest AFT) was sit-to-stand with an AFT of 6.2 mm, while for the moderate conformity the worst case was crossover turn and pivot turn. For high conformity, all activities produced a relatively small AFT ranging from 0 mm to 1.8 mm, which more closely resembles natural knee motion. In addition, no AFT was recorded during stair ascent for all three conformities (low, moderate, high).

Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the amount of AFT is highly dependent on the activity being undertaken and the articular conformity of the knee prosthesis, and the worst case activity depends on the knee conformity. The clinical relevance of this study is that it offers valuable information towards the design of improved knee prostheses and selection of knee implants for clinical use.

Level of evidence

II.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abdel-Rahman EM, Hefzy MS (1998) Three-dimensional dynamic behaviour of the human knee joint under impact loading. Med Eng Phys 20(4):276–290

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Arnout N, Vanlommel L, Vanlommel 2, Luyckx JP, Labey L, Innocenti B, Victor J, Bellemans J (2015) Post-cam mechanics and tibiofemoral kinematics: a dynamic in vitro analysis of eight posterior-stabilized total knee designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(11):3343–3353

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. ASTM F3141 (2017) Standard guide for total knee replacement loading profiles

  4. Bergmann G, Bender A, Graichen F, Dymke J, Rohlmann A, Trepczynski A, Heller MO, Kutzner I (2014) Standardized loads acting in knee implants. PLoS One 9(1):e86035

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bergmann G, Graichen F (2014) Loading of orthopedic implants. OrthoLoad2014 [cited 2014] http://www.orthoload.com

  6. Cheng CK, Brand RA, Brown TD (1993) Knee joint force distributions in the stance phase of the human gait. Biomed Eng Appl Basis Commun 5(6):56–64

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clary CW, Fitzpatrick CK, Maletsky LP, Rullkoetter PJ (2013) The influence of total knee arthroplasty geometry on mid-flexion stability: an experimental and finite element study. J Biomech 46(7):1351–1357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. DesJardins JD, Walker PS, Haider H, Perry J (2000) The use of a force-controlled dynamic knee simulator to quantify the mechanical performance of total knee replacement designs during functional activity. J Biomech 33(10):1231–1242

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Godest AC, Beaugonin M, Haug E, Taylor M, Gregson PJ (2005) Simulation of a knee joint replacement during a gait cycle using explicit finite element analysis. J Biomech 38(3):265–275

    Google Scholar 

  10. Grood ES, Suntay WJ (1983) A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng 105(2):136–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Halloran JP, Easley SK, Petrella AJ, Rullkoetter PJ (2005) Comparison of deformable and elastic foundation finite element simulations for predicting knee replacement mechanics. J Biomech Eng 127(5):813–818

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hamai S, Okazaki K, Shimoto T, Nakahara H, Higaki H, Iwamoto Y (2015) Continuous sagittal radiological evaluation of stair-climbing in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties using image-matching techniques. J Arthroplast 30(5):864–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hollister AM, Jatana S, Singh AK, Sullivan WW, Lupichuk AG (1993) The axes of rotation of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 290:259–268

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hsu WH, Fisk JA, Yamamoto Y, Debski RE, Woo SL (2006) Differences in torsional joint stiffness of the knee between genders: a human cadaveric study. Am J Sports Med 34(5):765–770

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Innocenti B, Rosellini G, Pianigiani S (2017) Single-radius vs j-curved femoral designs during walking and squatting. ESB-ITA. ISBN: 978-88-6296-000-7

  16. ISO 14243-1 (2009) Implants for surgery. Wear of total knee joint prostheses. Loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines with load control and corresponding environmental conditions for test

  17. Kessler O, Dürselen L, Banks S, Mannel H, Marin F (2007) Sagittal curvature of total knee replacements predicts in vivo kinematics. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 22(1):52–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lin KJ, Huang CH, Liu YL, Chen WC, Chang TW, Yang CT, Lai YS, Cheng CK (2011) Influence of post-cam design of posterior stabilized knee prosthesis on tibiofemoral motion during high knee flexion. Clin Biomech (Bristol Avon) 26(8):847–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Louisia S, Siebold R, Canty J, Bartlett RJ (2005) Assessment of posterior stability in total knee replacement by stress radiographs: prospective comparison of two different types of mobile bearing implants. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13(6):476–482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Massin P, Boyer P, Sabourin M (2012) Less femorotibial rotation and AP translation in deep-dished total knee arthroplasty. An intraoperative kinematic study using navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(9):1714–1719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Minoda Y, Ikebuchi M, Mizokawa S, Ohta Y, Nakamura H (2016) Mobile-bearing TKA improved the anteroposterior joint stability in mid-flexion range comparing to fixed-bearing TKA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(11):1601–1606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pinskerova V, Johal P, Nakagawa S, Sosna A, Williams A, Gedroyc W, Freeman MA (2004) Does the femur roll-back with flexion? J Bone Joint Surg Br 86(6):925–931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shimizu N, Tomita T, Yamazaki T, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K (2013) In vivo movement of femoral flexion axis of a single-radius total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29(12):2407–2411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stoddard JE, Deehan DJ, Bull AM, McCaskie AW, Amis AA (2013) The kinematics and stability of single-radius versus multi-radius femoral components related to mid-range instability after TKA. J Orthop Res 31(1):53–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Taylor MJ, Dabnichki P, Strike SC (2005) A three-dimensional biomechanical comparison between turning strategies during the stance phase of walking. Hum Mov Sci 24(4):558–573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Uvehammer J, Kärrholm J, Brandsson S (2000) In vivo kinematics of total knee arthroplasty. Concave versus posterior-stabilised tibial joint surface. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82(4):499–505

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Stralen RA, Heesterbeek PJ, Wymenga AB (2015) Different femorotibial contact points between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs do not show clinical impact. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(11):3368–3374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Walker PS, Lowry MT, Kumar A (2014) The effect of geometric variations in posterior-stabilized knee designs on motion characteristics measured in a knee loading machine. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):238–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang H, Simpson KJ, Chamnongkich S, Kinsey T, Mahoney OM (2008) Biomechanical influence of TKA designs with varying radii on bilateral TKA patients during sit-to-stand. Dyn Med 13(7):12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wolterbeek N, Nelissen RG, Valstar ER (2012) No differences in in vivo kinematics between six different types of knee prostheses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(3):559–564

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Colin McClean for his assistance with proofreading this manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Grant from the Chinese National Science and Technology Program (National Key Research and Development Plan) (Grant number: 210YBXM2016110002).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100083, China

    Xiao-Hong Wang & Cheng-Kung Cheng

  2. Naton Institute of Medical Technology, Beijing, 100095, China

    Xiao-Hong Wang

  3. Beijing Medical Implant Engineering Research Center, Beijing Naton Technology Group Co. LTD, Beijing, 100082, China

    Da-Yong Song

  4. Beijing Engineering Laboratory of Functional Medical Materials and Devices, Beijing Naton Technology Group Co. LTD, Beijing, 100082, China

    Xiang Dong

  5. Japan Research Institute of Artificial Joint, Research Institute of Rheumatology Medical Treatment, Tokyo, 104-0032, Japan

    Toru Suguro

  6. Beijing Advanced Innovation Center for Biomedical Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, 100191, China

    Cheng-Kung Cheng

Authors
  1. Xiao-Hong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Da-Yong Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiang Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Toru Suguro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cheng-Kung Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheng-Kung Cheng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There’s no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study dealt with published data only, no ethical approval was needed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, XH., Song, DY., Dong, X. et al. Motion type and knee articular conformity influenced mid-flexion stability of a single radius knee prosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27, 1595–1603 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5181-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5181-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation