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

Flexion-Extension Gap in Cruciate-Retaining Versus Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Cadaveric Study

International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA)



Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

A discrepancy exists between biomechanical and clinical outcome studies when comparing cruciate-retaining (CR) versus posterior stabilized (PS) component designs. The purpose of this study is to re-evaluate experimental model results using half-body specimens with intact extensor mechanisms and navigation to evaluate PS and CR component gaps though an entire range of motion.

METHODS:

A custom-designed knee testing apparatus was used for secure anchoring of the lower half of cadaver pelvic, allowing full range of knee motion and the application of traction throughout that range. Eight sequential testing regimens: were conducted with knee intact, with CR TKA in place, with PS TKA with quadriceps tendon in place, with PS TKA with sectioned quadriceps tendon in place, with and without traction at each stage. At each stage, a navigated knee system with dedicated software was used to record component gapping through a full range of motion from 0° to 120°. The amount of traction used was 22N. Each knee (n = 10) was taken through 6 full ranges of motion at every stage. At each stage, corroboration of navigation findings was attempted using a modified gap balancer to take static gap measurements at 0° and 90° with 12 in. lbs of torque was applied.

RESULTS:

The difference in component gapping between CR and PS knees resulted in a range from −0.85 mm to 0.62 mm. The range of component gapping was from −0.67 mm to 0.70 mm with both constructs under 22N traction load. There was no significant difference between loaded and unloaded component gaps, and there were no statistically significant differences in component gapping between CR and PS knees throughout a full range of motion. Static flexion-extension gap measurements, were significantly different from previously published data, notably at in 90° flexion gap measurement. The comparison of the sectioned unloaded and sectioned loaded quadriceps tendon constructs gave a range of distraction of tibio-femoral gaps from 1.85 to 5.22 mm and 1.46 to 4.60 mm, respectively. These measurements were significantly increased over previously reported findings.

CONCLUSION:

There was no significant difference between the CR and PS TKA designs with respect to component gapping when measured through a complete range of motion with an intact extensor mechanism. This data contradicts earlier results, obtained from less complete specimens, and correlates with clinical studies which show no gap differences in CR and PS knees. We conclude that the sectioned quadriceps tendon influences knee flexion-extension gaps in a PS TKA construct model. This finding suggests that intact extensor mechanisms may be required to perform proper kinematic studies of TKA, and this may be a contributing factor in the discrepancies observed between previous biomechanical and clinical outcome studies.

Clinical Relevance: The findings of this study may solve the controversy regarding differences of the CR and PS TKA designs observed using biomechanical models.


*Email: