We have located links that may give you full text access.
Contact Kinematics Correlates to Tibial Component Migration Following Single Radius Posterior Stabilized Knee Replacement.
Journal of Arthroplasty 2018 March
BACKGROUND: Contact kinematics between total knee arthroplasty components is thought to affect implant migration; however, the interaction between kinematics and tibial component migration has not been thoroughly examined in a modern implant system.
METHODS: A total of 24 knees from 23 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty with a single radius, posterior stabilized implant were examined. Patients underwent radiostereometric analysis at 2 and 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 1 and 2 years to measure migration of the tibial component in all planes. At 1 year, patients also had standing radiostereometric analysis examinations acquired in 0°, 20°, 40°, and 60° of flexion, and the location of contact and magnitude of any condylar liftoff was measured for each flexion angle. Regression analysis was performed between kinematic variables and migration at 1 year.
RESULTS: The average magnitude of maximum total point motion across all patients was 0.671 ± 0.270 mm at 1 year and 0.608 ± 0.359 mm at 2 years (P = .327). Four implants demonstrated continuous migration of >0.2 mm between the first and second year of implantation. There were correlations between the location of contact and tibial component anterior-posterior tilt, varus-valgus tilt, and anterior-posterior translation. The patients with continuous migration demonstrated atypical kinematics and condylar liftoff in some instances.
CONCLUSION: Kinematics can influence tibial component migration, likely through alterations of force transmission. Abnormal kinematics may play a role in long-term implant loosening.
METHODS: A total of 24 knees from 23 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty with a single radius, posterior stabilized implant were examined. Patients underwent radiostereometric analysis at 2 and 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 1 and 2 years to measure migration of the tibial component in all planes. At 1 year, patients also had standing radiostereometric analysis examinations acquired in 0°, 20°, 40°, and 60° of flexion, and the location of contact and magnitude of any condylar liftoff was measured for each flexion angle. Regression analysis was performed between kinematic variables and migration at 1 year.
RESULTS: The average magnitude of maximum total point motion across all patients was 0.671 ± 0.270 mm at 1 year and 0.608 ± 0.359 mm at 2 years (P = .327). Four implants demonstrated continuous migration of >0.2 mm between the first and second year of implantation. There were correlations between the location of contact and tibial component anterior-posterior tilt, varus-valgus tilt, and anterior-posterior translation. The patients with continuous migration demonstrated atypical kinematics and condylar liftoff in some instances.
CONCLUSION: Kinematics can influence tibial component migration, likely through alterations of force transmission. Abnormal kinematics may play a role in long-term implant loosening.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app