We have located links that may give you full text access.
In vivo kinematics of gait in posterior-stabilized and bicruciate-stabilized total knee arthroplasties using image-matching techniques.
International Orthopaedics 2018 November
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two types of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs: posterior-stabilized (PS) and bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) on in vivo kinematics during gait.
METHODS: Continuous X-ray images of the gait were taken using a flat panel detector for 23 PS and BCS TKAs. We analyzed the tibiofemoral implant flexion angle, anteroposterior (AP) translation, axial rotation, and anterior/posterior cam-post contact using image-matching techniques.
RESULTS: Double knee actions were demonstrated for the PS and BCS design (35 and 61%, respectively, p = 0.08). The tibiofemoral AP positions were significantly more posterior at peak extension (- 1.7 ± 2.2 and 1.0 ± 2.5 mm, respectively, p < 0.01) and anterior at peak flexion (1.3 ± 2.3 and - 0.8 ± 2.8 mm, respectively, p = 0.01) for the PS design than for the BCS design, with a significant difference in AP translation (3.0 ± 3.9 mm anterior and 1.7 ± 2.8 mm posterior, respectively, p < 0.01). Anterior/posterior tibial post contacts were found in 83/4% and 74/30% for the PS and BCS designs, respectively, with a significant difference in posterior contact (p = 0.72/0.04, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The knee flexion pattern, tibiofemoral AP translation, axial rotation, and cam-post contact during gait varied, depending on the type of implant, the PS and BCS designs.
METHODS: Continuous X-ray images of the gait were taken using a flat panel detector for 23 PS and BCS TKAs. We analyzed the tibiofemoral implant flexion angle, anteroposterior (AP) translation, axial rotation, and anterior/posterior cam-post contact using image-matching techniques.
RESULTS: Double knee actions were demonstrated for the PS and BCS design (35 and 61%, respectively, p = 0.08). The tibiofemoral AP positions were significantly more posterior at peak extension (- 1.7 ± 2.2 and 1.0 ± 2.5 mm, respectively, p < 0.01) and anterior at peak flexion (1.3 ± 2.3 and - 0.8 ± 2.8 mm, respectively, p = 0.01) for the PS design than for the BCS design, with a significant difference in AP translation (3.0 ± 3.9 mm anterior and 1.7 ± 2.8 mm posterior, respectively, p < 0.01). Anterior/posterior tibial post contacts were found in 83/4% and 74/30% for the PS and BCS designs, respectively, with a significant difference in posterior contact (p = 0.72/0.04, respectively).
CONCLUSION: The knee flexion pattern, tibiofemoral AP translation, axial rotation, and cam-post contact during gait varied, depending on the type of implant, the PS and BCS designs.
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