Download PDF
Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2006; 144(2): 164-171
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-921540
Kniegelenk

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

In-vitro-Untersuchung der Spannung des hinteren Kreuzbandes nach primärer Knieendoprothetik

Vergleich fixes versus mobiles DesignIn Vitro Investigation of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Strain Following Total Knee ArthroplastyComparison of Fixed Versus Mobile DesignT. Siebel1 , W. Käfer2
  • 1Orthopädische Klinik, Knappschaftskrankenhaus Püttlingen, Püttlingen
  • 2Orthopädische Universitätsklinik am RKU, Ulm
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 April 2006 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung: Ziel der biomechanischen Kadaverstudie war es, die Spannung des hinteren Kreuzbandes (HKB) nach Implantation einer Knietotalendoprothese im Vergleich eines fixen und eines mobilen Designs zu untersuchen und dabei die Veränderung des tibialen Slope zu berücksichtigen. Material und Methodik: Acht Natural Knee-I (NK-I) Endoprothesen mit fixem Inlay und acht Low Contact Stress (LCS) Endoprothesen mit mobilen Meniskallagern wurden in humane Kadaverkniegelenke implantiert. Die Spannung des HKB wurde mit Dehnungsmessstreifen analysiert. Die Kniegelenkkinematik wurde mit einem Kniebelastungsprüfstand, der über alle sechs Freiheitsgrade des Kniegelenks verfügt, mit (300 Newton) und ohne Lastapplikation untersucht. Die Veränderung des tibialen Slope wurde radiologisch bestimmt. Die statistische Analyse erfolgte mittels Student-t-Test, Wilcoxon Rangsummen-Test und Spearman-Korrelationsanalyse. Ergebnisse: Postoperativ zeigte sich eine Zunahme des tibialen Slope um 2,1° (p = 0,14) bei der NK-I-Prothese bzw. 1,1° (p = 0,12) bei der LCS-Prothese. Die Analyse der HKB-Spannung nach Implantation der NK-I-Prothese zeigte mit (p = 0,74) und ohne Lastapplikation (p = 0,20) nur geringfügige Modifikationen, während es nach Implantation der LCS-Prothese im belasteten Zyklus zu einem signifikanten Spannungsabfall (p = 0,01) kam; unbelastet zeigte die LCS-Prothese eine nahezu unveränderte HKB-Spannung (p = 1,0). Die Korrelationsanalyse der Modifikation von tibialem Slope und HKB-Spannung zeigte einen substanziellen Zusammenhang bei der NK-I-Prothese (unbelastet rs = 0,70, belastet rs = 0,64), im Fall der LCS-Prothese allerdings nur einen geringen (unbelastet rs = - 0,43) bzw. keinen Zusammenhang (belastet rs = 0,01). Schlussfolgerung: Die NK-I-Endoprothese lässt ein nahezu unverändertes Spannungsmuster des HKB zu, was dem Postulat einer prinzipiellen Irregularität der Kreuzbandspannung nach Knieendoprothetik widerspricht. Das Ausmaß der Kreuzbandspannung wird wesentlich von der Interaktion zwischen Design der Endoprothese (u. a. Mobilität des Inlays) und funktioneller Rolle des HKB bestimmt.

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to assess posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) strain following two different total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs (fixed versus mobile) with regard to modification of the tibial slope. Material and Methods: We investigated eight Natural Knee I (NK I) prosthesis with fixed bearing and eight Low Contact Stress (LCS) prosthesis with mobile meniscal bearings. TKA was performed using fresh frozen human cadaveric knee joints. PCL strain was measured with implantable force transducers. Knee kinematic assessment was made with a load of 300 Newton and without load using a six-degrees-of-freedom testing device. Modification of the tibial slope was analysed radiographically. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and the Spearman coefficient of correlation. Results: Assessment of the tibial slope showed a non-significant increase of 2.1° (p = 0.14) following TKA using the NK I, and of 1.1° (p = 0.12) using the LCS, respectively. Analysis of PCL strain following implantation of the NK I prosthesis revealed non-significant alterations both with (p = 0.74) and without load (p = 0.20). Concerning the LCS prosthesis, a significant decrease in PCL strain was seen with load (p = 0.01), whereas non-significant modifications were measured without load (p = 1.0). The modified tibial slope and modified PCL strain following LCS TKA showed no (with load: rs = 0.01) and modest correlation (without load: rs = - 0.43), respectively, whereas it was substantial following NK I TKA (with load: rs = 0.64, without load: rs = 0.70). Conclusion: As the NK I prosthesis allows PCL tension to be close to normal as the knee flexes, it can be stated that regular PCL tension after TKA is restorable and, moreover, it can be hypothesised that the effected tension of the PCL mainly depends on the interaction between design of the implant (fixed/mobile) and the functional role of the PCL.

Schlüsselwörter

Kniegelenkendoprothetik - Knieendoprothese - hinteres Kreuzband - Bandspannung - tibialer Slope

Key words

total knee arthroplasty - total knee replacement - posterior cruciate ligament - ligament strain - tibial slope

Literatur

  • 1 Laskin R S. The posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement.  Knee. 1995;  2 139-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Huang C H, Lee Y M, Liau J J, Cheng C K. Comparison of muscle strength of posterior cruciate-retained versus cruciate-sacrificed total knee arthroplasty.  J Arthroplasty. 1998;  13 779-783
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Müller W. Das Knie. Form, Funktion und ligamentäre Wiederherstellungschirurgie. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Friedrich N F, O'Brien W R. Zur funktionellen Anatomie der Kreuzbänder. In: Jakob RP, Steubli HU (eds). Kniegelenk und Kreuzbänder. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1990; 80-95
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Andersen H N, Dyhre-Poulsen P. The anterior cruciate ligament does play a role in controlling axial rotation in the knee.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1997;  5 145-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Del Valle M E, Harwin S F, Maestro A, Murcia A, Vega J A. Immunohistochemical analysis of mechanoreceptors in the human posterior cruciate ligament: a demonstration of its proprioceptive role and clinical relevance.  J Arthroplasty. 1998;  13 916-922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Arima J, Whiteside L A, Martin J W, Miura H, White S E, McCarthy D S. Effect of partial release of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop. 1998;  353 194-202
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sorger J I, Federle D, Kirk P G, Grood E, Cochran J, Levy M. The posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty.  J Arthroplasty. 1997;  12 869-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Emodi G J, Callaghan J J, Pedersen D R, Brown T D. Posterior cruciate ligament function following total knee arthroplasty: the effect of joint line elevation.  Iowa Orthop J. 1999;  19 82-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lewandowski P J, Askew M J, Lin D F, Hurst F W, Melby A. 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. 1997;  12 777-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dennis D A, Komistek R D, Colwell C E. et al . In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis.  Clin Orthop. 1998;  356 47-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Incavo S J, Beynnon B D, Johnson C C, Churchill D L. Knee kinematics in genesis total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of different tibial designs with and without posterior cruciate substitution in cadaveric specimens.  Am J Knee Surg. 1997;  10 209-215
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Stiehl J B, Komistek R D, Dennis D A, Paxson R D, Hoff W A. Fluoroscopic analysis of kinematics after posterior-cruciate-retaining knee arthroplasty.  J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 1995;  77 884-889
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Takatsu T, Itokazu M, Shimizu K, Brown T D. The function of posterior tilt of the tibial component following posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty.  Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 1998;  57 195-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lotke P A, Corces A, Williams J L, Hirsch H S. Strain characteristics of the posterior cruciate ligament after total knee arthroplasty.  J Knee Surg. 1993;  6 104-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Incavo S J, Johnson C C, Beynnon B D, Howe J G. Posterior cruciate ligament strain biomechanics in total knee arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop. 1994;  309 88-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dennis D A, Komistek R D, Stiehl J B, Walker S A, Dennis K N. Range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: the effect of implant design and weight-bearing conditions.  J Arthroplasty. 1998;  13 748-752
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Yamakado K, Worland R L, Jessup D E, Diaz-Borjon E, Pinilla R. Tight posterior cruciate ligament in posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a cause of posteromedial subluxation of the femur.  J Arthroplasty. 2003;  18 570-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lattanzio P J, Chess D G, MacDermid J C. Effect of the posterior cruciate ligament in knee-joint proprioception in total knee arthroplasty.  J Arthroplasty. 1998;  13 580-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Simmons S, Lephart S, Rubash H, Borsa P, Barrack R L. Proprioception following total knee arthroplasty with and without the posterior cruciate ligament.  J Arthroplasty. 1996;  11 763-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shoji H, Wolf A, Packard S, Yoshino S. Cruciate retained and excised total knee arthroplasty. A comparative study in patients with bilateral total knee arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop. 1994;  305 218-322
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tanzer M, Smith K, Burnett S. Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: balancing the gap.  J Arthroplasty. 2002;  17 813-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Udomkiat P, Meng B J, Dorr L D, Wan Z. Functional comparison of posterior cruciate retention and substitution knee replacement.  Clin Orthop. 2000;  378 192-201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Singerman R, Dean J C, Pagan H D, Goldberg V M. Decreased posterior tibial slope increases strain in the posterior cruciate ligament following total knee arthroplasty.  J Arthroplasty. 1996;  11 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Imran A, O'Connor J J. Theoretical estimates of cruciate ligament forces: effects of tibial surface geometry and ligament orientations.  Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 1997;  211 425-439
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Griffin F M, Insall J N, Scuderi G R. Accuracy of soft tissue balancing in total knee arthroplasty.  J Arthroplasty. 2000;  15 970-973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Siebel T, Käfer W. In vitro investigation of knee joint kinematics following cruciate retaining versus cruciate sacrificing total knee arthroplasty.  Acta Orthop Belg. 2003;  69 433-440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Siebel T, Käfer W. Modification of the posterior cruciate ligament tension following total knee arthroplasty: comparison of the Genesis CR and LCS meniscal bearing prostheses.  Knee. 2004;  11 203-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Glos D L, Butler D L, Grood E S, Levy M S. In vitro evaluation of an implantable force transducer (IFT) in a patellar tendon model.  J Biomech Eng. 1993;  115 335-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fox R J, Harner C D, Sakane M, Carlin G J, Woo S L. Determination of the in situ forces in the human posterior cruciate ligament using robotic technology. A cadaveric study.  Am J Sports Med. 1998;  26 395-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mutschler W. Anatomie und Biomechanik des Kniegelenkes. In: Burri C, Mutschler W (eds). Das Knie: Verletzungen, Verletzungsfolgen, Erkrankungen. Hippokrates, Stuttgart 1982; 9-19
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Sathasivam S, Walker P S. The conflicting requirements of laxity and conformity in total knee replacement.  J Biomech. 1999;  32 239-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Tsakonas A C, Polyzoides A J. Reduction of polyethylene in a congruent meniscal knee prosthesis. Experimental and clinical studies.  Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1997;  275 127-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Carlin G J, Livesay G A, Harner C D, Ishibashi Y, Kim H S, Woo S L. In-situ forces in the human posterior cruciate ligament in response to posterior tibial loading.  Ann Biomed Eng. 1996;  24 193-197
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sakane M, Livesay G A, Fox R J, Rudy T W, Runco T J, Woo S L. Relative contribution of the ACL, MCL, and bony contact to the anterior stability of the knee.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999;  7 93-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 O'Connor J J, Goodfellow J W. Theory and practice of meniscal knee replacement: designing against wear.  Proc Inst Mech Eng [H]. 1996;  210 217-222
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kleinbart F A, Bryk E, Evangelista J, Scott W N, Vigorita V J. Histologic comparison of posterior cruciate ligaments from arthritic and age-matched knee specimens.  J Arthroplasty. 1996;  11 726-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Laskin R S. Total knee arthroplasty using an uncemented, polyethylene tibial implant. A seven-year follow-up study.  Clin Orthop. 1993;  288 270-276
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Laskin R S. The Genesis cemented modular total knee prosthesis: a 3-year follow-up study.  Knee. 1994;  1 46-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Wilson D R, Feikes J D, O'Connor J J. Ligaments and articular contact guide passive knee flexion.  J Biomech. 1998;  31 1127-1136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. med. W. Käfer

Orthopädische Universitätsklinik am RKU

Oberer Eselsberg 45

89081 Ulm

Phone: 07 31/1 77 51 21

Fax: 07 31/1 77 11 03

Email: wolframkaefer@hotmail.com

      >