header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

FLUOROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF A BICRUCIATE-RETAINING VERSUS A POSTERIOR CRUCIATE-RETAINING TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY

International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA) meeting, New Early-Career Webinar Series (NEWS), held online, November 2020.



Abstract

Introduction

A bicruciate retaining (BCR) TKA is thought to maintain a closer resemblance to the native knee kinematics compared to a posterior cruciate retaining (CR) TKA. With BCR TKAs retainment of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) facilitates proprioception and balance which is thought to lead to more natural knee kinematics and increased functional outcome. The aim of this study was to quantify and compare the kinematics of a BCR and CR TKA during functional tests.

Materials and Methods

In this patient-blinded randomized controlled trial, a total of 40 patients with knee osteoarthritis were included, 18 of them received a BCR TKA (Vanguard XP, Zimmer-Biomet) and 22 received a CR TKA (Vanguard CR, Zimmer-Biomet). Fluoroscopic analysis was done 1 year post-operatively. The main outcome was posterior femoral rollback (i.e. translation of the femorotibial contact point (CP)) of the BCR and CR TKA during a step-up test. Secondary, the kinematics during a lunge test were quantified as anterior-posterior (AP) translation of the femorotibial CP. Independent student t-tests (or non-parametric equivalent) were used to analyze the effect of BCR versus CR TKA on these measures, to correct for the multiple testing problem post-hoc Bonferroni-Holm corrections were applied.

Results

The mean AP CP for the BCR implant was not significantly different from the CR implant in the medial compartment (Figure 1, left). However, laterally the BCR implant shows a more posterior CP during late extension i.e. from 30° flexion to 0° extension (Figure 1, right).

Figure 2 shows the AP CP during the final extension phase (30° flexion to 0° extension) of the step-up task for both implants on the tibia plateau. While the CR TKA remains mostly stable throughout this phase, the BCR TKA shows tibial internal rotation from 30° to 10° and tibial external rotation in the final extension phase: a kinematic pattern comparable to the natural knee's screw home mechanism.

The lateral AP CP of the BCR TKA is more posterior compared to the CR TKA during the whole lunge task (Figure 3, right) the medial CP is more anterior in the 0–30° flexion (Figure 3, left). The main differences between the implants during the lunge task are observable in the early flexion phase, which is in line with ACL function.

Conclusion

These preliminary results suggest that the kinematics of the BCR implant reproduces the natural screw-home mechanism in early flexion/late extension. The difference between the BCR and CR implants is mostly visible in the flexion phase in which the ACL is effective, which is in congruency with the absence of the ACL in CR TKAs.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.