Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Are contemporary femoral components sizing and design likely to affect functional results in TKA? A mathematical model of an implanted knee to predict knee forces

  • Original Article
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study is aimed to investigate the effects of the choice of femoral and tibial components on several mechanical outputs that might be associated with total knee replacement surgery outcomes using a validated computational model: the Kansas knee simulator.

Methods

Two models from the same range of implants were taken into account: Model 1, the femoral component fitted the femoral epiphysis, with physiological positioning of the articulating surface using a 10-mm-thick tibial component, and in Model 2, the femoral component was 4 mm smaller than in Model 1, and a 14-mm-thick tibial component was used with a similar tibial resection and the tibio-femoral joint line was 4 mm more proximal to compensate the increased posterior bone resection and maintain proper soft-tissue tension in flexion. Changes in reaction forces and contact pressures between the components, changes in extensor muscle forces and changes in patello-femoral joint kinematics during walking gait have been studied.

Results

While the computational model predicted that most kinematic and kinetic outputs, including tibio-femoral and patello-femoral joint motions, contact forces, pressures and areas, were similar for Model 1 and Model 2, and a dramatic difference has been found in the extensor muscle forces necessary to flex and extend the knee. To reproduce the same knee motion with a knee reconstructed as in Model 2, a patient would need to generate approximately 40% greater extensor muscle force throughout the gait cycle in order to do so.

Conclusion

As a consequence of such a large increase in the extensor muscle force, the knee motions would probably be compromised and, subsequently, a patient with a knee reconstructed as in Model 2 would be less likely to be able to reproduce normal knee function and therefore more likely to report poor outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goldstein WG, Gordon AC, Branson JJ (2007) Implant sizing and female sex in total knee arthroplasty: differences between US manufacturers. J Arthroplasty 22(2):310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.12.071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fitzpatrick CK, Clary CW, Rullkoetter PJ (2012) The role of patient, surgical, and implant design variation in total knee replacement performance. J Biomech 45(12):2092–2102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2012.05.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wongsak S, Kawinwonggowit V, Mulpruck P, Channoom T, Woratanarat P (2009) Accuracy of knee implants sizing predicted by digital images. J Med Assoc Thail = Chotmaihet thangphaet 92(6):S85–90

    Google Scholar 

  4. Maloney WJ, Schurman DJ (1992) The effects of implant design on range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Total condylar versus posterior stabilized total condylar designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 278:147–152

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mihalko W, Fishkin Z, Krackow K (2006) Patellofemoral overstuff and its relationship to flexion after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 449:283–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000218756.89439.06

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moemans A (2002) Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Influence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(1):50–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Mahoney OM, Kinsey T (2010) Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(5):1115–1121. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00434

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonnin MP, Schmidt A, Basiglini L, Bossard N, Dantony E (2013) Mediolateral oversizing influences pain, function, and flexion after TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 21(10):2314–2324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2443-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sakalkale DP, Sharkey PF, Eng K, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH (2001) Effect of femoral component offset on polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:125–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Little NJ, Busch CA, Gallagher JA, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (2009) Acetabular polyethylene wear and acetabular inclination and femoral offset. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(11):2895–2900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0845-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. D’Lima DD, Poole C, Chadha H, Hermida JC, Mahar A, Colwell CW Jr (2001) Quadriceps moment arm and quadriceps forces after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Andriacchi TP (1988) Biomechanics and gait analysis in total knee replacement. Orthop Rev 17(5):470–473

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Andriacchi TP, Stanwyck TS, Galante JO (1986) Knee biomechanics and total knee replacement. J Arthroplasty 1(3):211–219

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Insall JN, Lachiewicz PF, Burstein AH (1982) The posterior stabilized condylar prosthesis: a modification of the total condylar design. Two to four-year clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(9):1317–1323

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Guess TM, Maletsky LP (2005) Computational modeling of a dynamic knee simulator for reproduction of knee loading. J Biomech Eng 127(7):1216–1221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Halloran JP, Petrella AJ, Rullkoetter PJ (2005) Explicit finite element modeling of total knee replacement mechanics. J Biomech 38(2):323–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ahmed AM, McLean C (2002) In vitro measurement of the restraining role of the anterior cruciate ligament during walking and stair ascent. J Biomech Eng 124(6):768–779

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dota AFZM, Demange MK, Camanho GL, Hernandez AJ (2007) Study of the mechanical properties of the posterior cruciate ligament and patellar tendon on fresh human cadavers after radiofrequency shrinkage. Acta Ortop Bras 15(3):138–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Abdel-Rahman EM, Hefzy MS (1998) Three-dimensional dynamic behaviour of the human knee joint under impact loading. Med Eng Phys 20(4):276–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Yu CH, Walker PS, Dewar ME (2001) The effect of design variables of condylar total knees on the joint forces in step climbing based on a computer model. J Biomech 34(8):1011–1021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. D’Lima DD, Patil S, Steklov N, Chien S, Colwell CW Jr (2007) In vivo knee moments and shear after total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech 40(Suppl 1):S11–S17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Andriacchi TP, Galante JO, Fermier RW (1982) The influence of total knee-replacement design on walking and stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(9):1328–1335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Draganich LF, Andriacchi TP, Andersson GB (1987) Interaction between intrinsic knee mechanics and the knee extensor mechanism. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc 5(4):539–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100050409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dorr LD, Ochsner JL, Gronley J, Perry J (1988) Functional comparison of posterior cruciate-retained versus cruciate-sacrificed total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236:36–43

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Stukenborg-Colsman C (2004) Quadriceps function after TKA—an in vitro study in a knee kinematic simulator. Clin Biomech 19(3):270–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.11.006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wimmer MA, Andriacchi TP (1997) Tractive forces during rolling motion of the knee: implications for wear in total knee replacement. J Biomech 30(2):131–137

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Digennaro V, Zambianchi F, Marcovigi A, Mugnai R, Fiacchi F, Catani F (2014) Design and kinematics in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(2):227–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2245-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Hofmann AA, Kurtin SM, Lyons S, Tanner AM, Bolognesi MP (2006) Clinical and radiographic analysis of accurate restoration of the joint line in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(8):1154–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2005.10.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kowalczewski JB, Labey L, Chevalier Y, Okon T, Innocenti B, Bellemans J (2015) Does joint line elevation after revision knee arthroplasty affect tibio-femoral kinematics, contact pressure or collateral ligament lengths? An in vitro analysis. Arch Med Sci 11(2):311–318. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2014.46078

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Ji SJ, Zhou YX, Jiang X, Cheng ZY, Wang GZ, Ding H, Yang ML, Zhu ZL (2015) Effect of joint line elevation after posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty on clinical function and kinematics. Chin Med J 128(21):2866–2872. https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.168043

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Komistek RD, Kane TR, Mahfouz M, Ochoa JA, Dennis DA (2005) Knee mechanics: a review of past and present techniques to determine in vivo loads. J Biomech 38(2):215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewandowski PJ, Askew MJ, Lin DF, Hurst FW, Melby A (1997) Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and-sacrificing mobile bearing total knee arthroplasties. An in vitro comparison of the New Jersey LCS meniscal bearing and rotating platform prostheses. J Arthroplasty 12(7):777–784

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dalury DF, Dennis DA (2003) Extensor mechanism problems following total knee replacement. J Knee Surg 16(2):118–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Marra MA, Andersen MS, Damsgaard M, Koopman B, Janssen D, Verdonschot N (2017) Evaluation of a surrogate contact model in force-dependent kinematic simulations of total knee replacement. J Biomech Eng. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036605

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mugnai R, Digennaro V, Ensini A, Leardini A, Catani F (2014) Can TKA design affect the clinical outcome? Comparison between two guided-motion systems. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthroscopy Off J ESSKA 22(3):581–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2509-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shi X, Zhou Z, Shen B, Yang J, Kang P, Pei F (2015) Variations in morphological characteristics of prostheses for total knee arthroplasty leading to kinematic differences. Knee 22(1):18–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.10.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Konig C, Sharenkov A, Matziolis G, Taylor WR, Perka C, Duda GN, Heller MO (2010) Joint line elevation in revision TKA leads to increased patellofemoral contact forces. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc 28(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20952

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo 200, Rome, Italy

    A. Tecame & R. Papalia

  2. ZimmerBiomet Italia srl, Via Milano 6, San Donato Milanese, MI, Italy

    M. Ferrari

  3. Orthopaedic Department Knee and Hip Reconstruction – Sport Medicine, Clinical Institute Sant’ Ambrogio, IRCCS Galeazzi, Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, Milan, Italy

    B. Violante

  4. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Città di Parma Clinic, Piazzale Athos Maestri 5, Parma, Italy

    G. Calafiore & P. Adravanti

Authors
  1. A. Tecame
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Violante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Calafiore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. Papalia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Adravanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Tecame.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

None

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tecame, A., Ferrari, M., Violante, B. et al. Are contemporary femoral components sizing and design likely to affect functional results in TKA? A mathematical model of an implanted knee to predict knee forces. Musculoskelet Surg 102, 289–297 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-018-0533-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-018-0533-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation