Abstract
Introduction
In total knee arthroplasty (TKA) the knee may be found to be too stiff in extension, causing a flexion contracture. One proposed surgical technique to correct this extension deficit is to recut the distal femur, but that may lead to excessively raising the joint line. Alternatively, full extension may be gained by stripping the posterior capsule from its femoral attachment, however if this release has an adverse impact on anterior-posterior (AP) stability of the implanted knee then it may be advisable to avoid this technique. The aim of the study was therefore to investigate the effect of posterior capsular release on AP stability in TKA, and compare this to the restraint from the cruciate ligaments and different TKA inserts.
Methods
Eight cadaveric knees were mounted in a six degree of freedom testing rig (Fig.1) and tested at 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° flexion with ±150 N AP force, with and without a 710 N axial compressive load. The rig allowed an AP drawer to be applied to the tibia at a fixed angle of flexion, whilst the other degrees-of-freedom were unconstrained and free to translate/ rotate. After the native knee was tested with and without the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), a cruciate-retaining TKA (Legion; Smith & Nephew) was implanted and the tests repeated. The following stages were then performed: replacing with a deep dished insert, cutting the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), releasing the posterior capsule using an osteotome (Fig. 2), replacing with a posterior-stabilised implant and finally using a more-constrained insert.
Results
In anterior drawer, only cutting the ACL caused a large increase in laxity compared to the native state (8 mm average across all flexion angles). At 0°, releasing the posterior capsule increased the laxity by 1.4 mm compared with cutting the PCL (p < 0.05), with no significance found at any other flexion angles. In posterior drawer with no compressive load, cutting the PCL significantly increased laxity at 30°, 60° and 90° (average 7 mm), however additional release of the posterior capsule only increased laxity by 1.5 mm and 0.8 mm at 0° and 30° respectively. At 30°, 60° and 90°, posterior stability was significantly restored by introducing a posterior-stabilised or more-constrained insert. When a 710 N compressive load was applied.
Conclusions
The most important finding of the study was that releasing the posterior capsule did not cause a clinically large difference in AP laxity in context with cutting the PCL. Therefore, releasing the posterior capsule to restore extension during TKA surgery could be considered a biomechanically safe option. In cases of posterior instability due to PCL and capsular damage, a posterior-stabilised insert can restore stability, particularly in mid to late flexion. Future studies could compare this data to isolated implant constraints, to help investigate how much stability is provided by the different implant geometries compared to the PCL and posterior capsule.
