Abstract
Introduction
Kinematics post-TKA are complex; component alignment, component geometry and the patient specific musculoskeletal environment contribute towards the kinematic and kinetic outcomes of TKA. Tibial rotation in particular is largely uncontrolled during TKA and affects both tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics. Given the complex nature of post- TKA kinematics, this study sought to characterize the contribution of tibial tray rotation to kinematic outcome variability across three separate knee geometries in a simulated framework.
Method
Five 50th percentile knees were selected from a database of planned TKAs produced as part of a pre-operative dynamic planning system. Virtual surgery was performed using Stryker (Kalamazoo, MI) Triathlon CR and PS and MatOrtho (Leatherhead, UK) SAIPH knee medially stabilised (MS) components. All components were initially planned in mechanical alignment, with the femoral component neutral to the surgical TEA. Each knee was simulated through a deep knee bend, and the kinematics extracted. The tibial tray rotational alignment was then rotated internally and externally by 5° & 10°.
The computational model simulates a patient specific deep knee bend and has been validated against a cadaveric Oxford Knee Rig. Preoperative CT imaging was obtained, landmarking to identify all patient specific axes and ligament attachment sites was performed by pairs of trained biomedical engineers. Ethics for this study is covered by Bellberry Human Research Ethics Committee application number 2012-03-710.
Results and Discussion
From the 360 Knee Systems database, 1847 knees were analysed, giving an average coronal alignment of 4.25°±5.66° varus. Five knees were selected with alignments between 4.1° and 4.3° varus. Kinematic outcomes were averaged over the 5 knees. The component geometries resulted in characteristically distinct kinematics, in which femoral rollback was most constrained by the PS components, whereas tibiofemoral axial rotation was most constrained in MS components. Patella lateral shift was comparable amongst all components in extension, medialising in flexion. Patella shift remained more lateral in MS components compared to PS and CR.
Average patella lateral shift, medial and lateral facet rollback separated by tibial tray rotation are shown for all component systems in Figure 1. Medial and lateral facet rollback in the PS and CR components are symmetrical and opposite, indicating that with tibial tray rotation, the tibiofemoral articulation point balances between component rotation and neutral alignment, reflecting the restoring force exerted by the simulated collateral ligaments. As such, with higher internal tibial rotation and subsequent lateralisation of the tubercle, patella lateral shift increases. MS medial and lateral facet rollback however are not symmetrical nor opposite, reflecting the chirality of the tibiofemoral articulation. With internal tibial tray rotation, relatively high lateral facet rollback is observed, lateralising the femoral component centre, giving the patella component a relatively more medial position.
Conclusions
Component geometry was found here to produce characteristically distinct tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics. Medial stabilised components reported asymmetric kinematic changes, compared to either CR or PS components, in which a higher rate of change was observed for internal tray rotation, indicating that neutral or external rotation of medial stabilised components will result in more predictable kinematic outcomes.
