Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2240-3482
Original Article

In Vivo Kinematic Analysis of Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty during High Flexion Activities

Kenichi Kono 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
2   Department of Orthopaedic Biomaterial Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
,
Takaharu Yamazaki
3   Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering, Saitama Institute of Technology, Fukaya, Saitama, Japan
,
Masashi Tamaki 
2   Department of Orthopaedic Biomaterial Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
,
Hiroshi Inui
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Saitama Medical Center, Kawagoe, Saitama, Japan
,
Sakae Tanaka
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
,
Tetsuya Tomita
2   Department of Orthopaedic Biomaterial Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Osaka, Japan
5   Department of Medical Science, Graduate School of Medicine, Morinomiya University of Medical Sciences, Suminoe-ku, Osaka, Japan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has high conformity between the femoral articular surface and the meniscal bearing; therefore, the surface and subsurface contact stress is reduced. Additionally, the survival rate is high. However, the in vivo kinematics of MB UKA knees during high-flexion activities of daily living remain unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate in vivo the three-dimensional kinematics of MB UKA knees during high-flexion activities of daily living. A total of 17 knees of 17 patients who could achieve kneeling after MB UKA were examined. Under fluoroscopy, each patient performed squatting and kneeling motions. To estimate the spatial position and orientation of the knee, a two-dimensional/three-dimensional registration technique was used. We evaluated the femoral rotation and varus–valgus angle relative to the tibia and the anteroposterior translation of the medial sulcus (medial side) and lateral epicondyle (lateral side) of the femur on the plane perpendicular to the tibial mechanical axis in each flexion angle. From 130° to 140° of flexion, the femoral external rotation during squatting was significantly smaller than that during kneeling. Additionally, the medial side of the femur during squatting was significantly more posteriorly located compared with that during kneeling. There was no significant difference between squatting and kneeling in terms of the lateral side of the femur and the varus–valgus position in each flexion angle. At high flexion angle, the kinematics of MB UKA knees may differ depending on the performance.

Keywords

unicompartmental knee arthroplasty - kinematics - high-flexion activities - mobile-bearing


Publication History

Received: 07 June 2023

Accepted: 07 January 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 January 2024

Article published online:
01 February 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC, Closkey RF, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (09) 1999-2005
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (05) 963-974
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Wylde V, Blom AW, Whitehouse SL, Taylor AH, Pattison GT, Bannister GC. Patient-reported outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: comparison of midterm results. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (02) 210-216
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an age-dependent analysis. Knee 2014; 21 (01) 180-184
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (06) 793-801
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Motesharei A, Rowe P, Blyth M, Jones B, Maclean A. A comparison of gait one year post operation in an RCT of robotic UKA versus traditional Oxford UKA. Gait Posture 2018; 62: 41-45
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Millar LJ, Banger M, Rowe PJ, Blyth M, Jones B, Maclean A. A five-year follow up of gait in robotic assisted vs conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Gait Posture 2018; 65: 31-32
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Mochizuki T, Sato T, Blaha JD. et al. Kinematics of the knee after unicompartmental arthroplasty is not the same as normal and is similar to the kinematics of the knee with osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1911-1917
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Banks SA, Fregly BJ, Boniforti F, Reinschmidt C, Romagnoli S. Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar and bi-unicondylar knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2005; 13 (07) 551-556
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Catani F, Benedetti MG, Bianchi L, Marchionni V, Giannini S, Leardini A. Muscle activity around the knee and gait performance in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients: a comparative study on fixed- and mobile-bearing designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (06) 1042-1048
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Becker R, Mauer C, Stärke C. et al. Anteroposterior and rotational stability in fixed and mobile bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study using the robotic force sensor system. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21 (11) 2427-2432
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Heyse TJ, El-Zayat BF, De Corte R. et al. UKA closely preserves natural knee kinematics in vitro. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1902-1910
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Patil S, Colwell Jr CW, Ezzet KA, D'Lima DD. Can normal knee kinematics be restored with unicompartmental knee replacement?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (02) 332-338
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Peersman G, Slane J, Vuylsteke P. et al. Kinematics of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to native: results from an in vitro study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (11) 1557-1563
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Emerson Jr RH, Hansborough T, Reitman RD, Rosenfeldt W, Higgins LL. Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 62-70
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Smith TO, Hing CB, Davies L, Donell ST. Fixed versus mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2009; 95 (08) 599-605
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Walker T, Heinemann P, Bruckner T, Streit MR, Kinkel S, Gotterbarm T. The influence of different sets of surgical instrumentation in Oxford UKA on bearing size and component position. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (07) 895-902
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Ettinger M, Zoch JM, Becher C. et al. In vitro kinematics of fixed versus mobile bearing in unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135 (06) 871-877
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Pandit H, Hamilton TW, Jenkins C, Mellon SJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (11) 1493-1500
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Gleeson RE, Evans R, Ackroyd CE, Webb J, Newman JH. Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study. Knee 2004; 11 (05) 379-384
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Li MG, Yao F, Joss B, Ioppolo J, Nivbrant B, Wood D. Mobile vs. fixed bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a randomized study on short term clinical outcomes and knee kinematics. Knee 2006; 13 (05) 365-370
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Suzuki T, Ryu K, Kojima K. et al. Evaluation of spacer block technique using tensor device in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135 (07) 1011-1016
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN. The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 3-19
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 9-12
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Yamazaki T, Watanabe T, Nakajima Y. et al. Improvement of depth position in 2-D/3-D registration of knee implants using single-plane fluoroscopy. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2004; 23 (05) 602-612
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Kono K, Tomita T, Futai K. et al. In vivo three-dimensional kinematics of normal knees during different high-flexion activities. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (01) 50-55
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Kawashima K, Tomita T, Tamaki M, Murase T, Yoshikawa H, Sugamoto K. In vivo three-dimensional motion analysis of osteoarthritic knees. Mod Rheumatol 2013; 23 (04) 646-652
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Grood ES, Suntay WJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: application to the knee. J Biomech Eng 1983; 105 (02) 136-144
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013; 48 (03) 452-458
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Weber P, Woiczinski M, Steinbrück A. et al. Increase in the tibial slope in unicondylar knee replacement: analysis of the effect on the kinematics and ligaments in a weight-bearing finite element model. BioMed Res Int 2018; 2018: 8743604
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Lee TQ. Biomechanics of hyperflexion and kneeling before and after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 2014; 6 (02) 117-126
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Grieco TF, Sharma A, Dessinger GM, Cates HE, Komistek RD. In vivo kinematic comparison of a bicruciate stabilized total knee arthroplasty and the normal knee using fluoroscopy. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 565-571
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Niki Y, Takeda Y, Udagawa K, Enomoto H, Toyama Y, Suda Y. Is greater than 145degrees of deep knee flexion under weight-bearing conditions safe after total knee arthroplasty?: a fluoroscopic analysis of Japanese-style deep knee flexion. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (06) 782-787
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Hamai S, Moro-oka TA, Miura H. et al. Knee kinematics in medial osteoarthritis during in vivo weight-bearing activities. J Orthop Res 2009; 27 (12) 1555-1561
    Google Scholar