{"title":"全膝关节置换术中交叉关节保留与交叉关节置换假体的体内运动学比较","authors":"Keiji Iwamoto , Takaharu Yamazaki , Kazuomi Sugamoto , Tetsuya Tomita","doi":"10.1016/j.asmart.2021.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The decision to choose cruciate retaining (CR) insert or cruciate substituting (CS) insert during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a controversial issue. We hypothesized that there are different knee kinematics between CR and CS inserts and that a raised anterior lip design would offer a potential minimization of the paradoxical movement and provide joint stability. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare kinematics of a CR and CS TKA of the same single-radius design.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 20 knees with a CR TKA (10 knees in the CR insert and 10 knees in the CS insert). Patients were examined during deep knee flexion using fluoroscopy and femorotibial motion was determined using a 2- to 3-dimensional registration technique, which used computer-assisted design models to reproduce the spatial positions of the femoral and tibial components. We evaluated the knee range of motion (ROM), femoral axial rotation relative to the tibial component, anteroposterior translation, and kinematic pathway of the nearest point of the medial and lateral femoral condyles on the tibial tray.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average ROM was 121.0 ± 17.3° in CR and 110.8 ± 12.4° in CS. The amount of femoral axial rotation was 7.2 ± 3.9° in CR, and 7.4 ± 2.7° in CS. No significant difference was observed in the amount of anterior translation between CR and CS. The CR and CS inserts had a similar kinematic pattern up to 100° flexion that was central pivot up to 70° flexion and then paradoxical anterior femoral movement until 100° flexion.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The present study demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the inserts in knee kinematics. These kinematic results suggested that the increased anterior lip could not control anterior movement in the CS insert.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44283,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/06/main.PMC8521180.pdf","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of in vivo kinematics of total knee arthroplasty between cruciate retaining and cruciate substituting insert\",\"authors\":\"Keiji Iwamoto , Takaharu Yamazaki , Kazuomi Sugamoto , Tetsuya Tomita\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.asmart.2021.10.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The decision to choose cruciate retaining (CR) insert or cruciate substituting (CS) insert during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a controversial issue. We hypothesized that there are different knee kinematics between CR and CS inserts and that a raised anterior lip design would offer a potential minimization of the paradoxical movement and provide joint stability. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare kinematics of a CR and CS TKA of the same single-radius design.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 20 knees with a CR TKA (10 knees in the CR insert and 10 knees in the CS insert). Patients were examined during deep knee flexion using fluoroscopy and femorotibial motion was determined using a 2- to 3-dimensional registration technique, which used computer-assisted design models to reproduce the spatial positions of the femoral and tibial components. We evaluated the knee range of motion (ROM), femoral axial rotation relative to the tibial component, anteroposterior translation, and kinematic pathway of the nearest point of the medial and lateral femoral condyles on the tibial tray.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The average ROM was 121.0 ± 17.3° in CR and 110.8 ± 12.4° in CS. The amount of femoral axial rotation was 7.2 ± 3.9° in CR, and 7.4 ± 2.7° in CS. No significant difference was observed in the amount of anterior translation between CR and CS. The CR and CS inserts had a similar kinematic pattern up to 100° flexion that was central pivot up to 70° flexion and then paradoxical anterior femoral movement until 100° flexion.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The present study demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the inserts in knee kinematics. These kinematic results suggested that the increased anterior lip could not control anterior movement in the CS insert.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/06/main.PMC8521180.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221468732100025X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221468732100025X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of in vivo kinematics of total knee arthroplasty between cruciate retaining and cruciate substituting insert
Background
The decision to choose cruciate retaining (CR) insert or cruciate substituting (CS) insert during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a controversial issue. We hypothesized that there are different knee kinematics between CR and CS inserts and that a raised anterior lip design would offer a potential minimization of the paradoxical movement and provide joint stability. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare kinematics of a CR and CS TKA of the same single-radius design.
Methods
We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 20 knees with a CR TKA (10 knees in the CR insert and 10 knees in the CS insert). Patients were examined during deep knee flexion using fluoroscopy and femorotibial motion was determined using a 2- to 3-dimensional registration technique, which used computer-assisted design models to reproduce the spatial positions of the femoral and tibial components. We evaluated the knee range of motion (ROM), femoral axial rotation relative to the tibial component, anteroposterior translation, and kinematic pathway of the nearest point of the medial and lateral femoral condyles on the tibial tray.
Results
The average ROM was 121.0 ± 17.3° in CR and 110.8 ± 12.4° in CS. The amount of femoral axial rotation was 7.2 ± 3.9° in CR, and 7.4 ± 2.7° in CS. No significant difference was observed in the amount of anterior translation between CR and CS. The CR and CS inserts had a similar kinematic pattern up to 100° flexion that was central pivot up to 70° flexion and then paradoxical anterior femoral movement until 100° flexion.
Conclusion
The present study demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the inserts in knee kinematics. These kinematic results suggested that the increased anterior lip could not control anterior movement in the CS insert.
期刊介绍:
The Asia-Pacific Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation and Technology (AP-SMART) is the official peer-reviewed, open access journal of the Asia-Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society (APKASS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Society of Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine (JOSKAS). It is published quarterly, in January, April, July and October, by Elsevier. The mission of AP-SMART is to inspire clinicians, practitioners, scientists and engineers to work towards a common goal to improve quality of life in the international community. The Journal publishes original research, reviews, editorials, perspectives, and letters to the Editor. Multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines will be the trend in the coming decades. AP-SMART provides a platform for the exchange of new clinical and scientific information in the most precise and expeditious way to achieve timely dissemination of information and cross-fertilization of ideas.