Abstract
Introduction
Although total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is generally considered successful, 16–30% of patients are dissatisfied. There are multiple reasons for this, but some of the most frequent reasons for revision are instability and joint stiffness. A possible explanation for this is that the implant alignment is not optimized to ensure joint stability in the individual patient. In this work, we used an artificial neural network (ANN) to learn the relation between a given standard cruciate-retaining (CR) implant position and model-predicted post-operative knee kinematics. The final aim was to find a patient-specific implant alignment that will result in the estimated post-operative knee kinematics closest to the native knee.
Methods
We developed subject-specific musculoskeletal models (MSM) based on magnetic resonance images (MRI) of four ex vivo left legs. The MSM allowed for the estimation of secondary knee kinematics (e.g. varus-valgus rotation) as a function of contact, ligament, and muscle forces in a native and post-TKA knee. We then used this model to train an ANN with 1800 simulations of knee flexion with random implant position variations in the ±3 mm and ±3° range from mechanical alignment. The trained ANN was used to find the implant alignment that resulted in the smallest mean-square-error (MSE) between native and post-TKA tibiofemoral kinematics, which we term the dynamic alignment.
Results
Dynamic alignment average MSE kinematic differences to the native knees were 1.47 mm (± 0.89 mm) for translations and 2.89° (± 2.83°) for rotations. The implant variations required were in the range of ±3 mm and ±3° from the starting mechanical alignment.
Discussion
In this study we showed that the developed tool has the potential to find an implant position that will restore native tibiofemoral kinematics in TKA. The proposed method might also be used with other alignment strategies, such as to optimize implant position towards native ligament strains. If native knee kinematics are restored, a more normal gait pattern can be achieved, which might result in improved patient satisfaction. The small changes required to achieve the dynamic alignment do not represent large modifications that might compromise implant survivorship.
Conclusion
Patient-specific implant position predicted with MSM and ANN can restore native knee function in a post-TKA knee with a standard CR implant.
