Two different posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA designs: navigator evaluation of intraoperative kinematic differences.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare two types of posterior-stabilized (PS) mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The hypothesis was that no major differences were going to be found among the two TKA designs. METHODS: Two cohorts of patients who were divided according to implant design (Cohort A, new design gradually reducing radius PS MB TKA; Cohort B, traditional dual-radius PS MB TKA) were analyzed by means of intraoperative navigation. All operations were guided by a non-image-based navigation system that recorded relative femoral and tibial positions in native and implanted knees during the following kinematic tests: passive range of motion (PROM), varus-valgus stress test at 0° and 30° (VV0, VV30) and anterior/posterior drawer test at 90° of flexion (AP90). RESULTS: There were no significative differences in kinematic tests between the two implants. Cohort A, however, showed a different post-implant trend for VV0 and VV30 that were lower than the pre-implant ones, as expected, while for Cohort B, the trend is opposite. However, the gradually reducing radius prosthesis (Cohort A) showed a trend of improving stability (29% compared to the preoperative status) in mid-flexion (VV30) which the traditional dual-radius design (Cohort B) would not. Moreover, we found no differences among postoperative results of the two TKA designs. CONCLUSION: Despite design variations, no difference has been found among the prostheses in terms of PROM, rotations and translations. Both design kinematics did not show paradoxical external rotations, but an increase in femoral translation in mid-flexion without affecting the functioning of the prosthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Total knee replacement: intraoperative and postoperative kinematic assessment.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The main goals of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is to reduce the perceived pain and  restore knee mobility and function in case of osteoarthritic knees joints. Literature shows how the three major causes of TKA failures are related to wear, loosening and instability and this is due to a problem of imbalance and malalignment. Intraoperative and postoperative kinematics analysis could be of benefit for improving surgery outcome. The aim of the present paper is to give an overview of the two set-up with the highest accuracy for intraoperative and postoperative TKA kinematics evaluation, currently in use at Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli. Introperative and Postoperative Evaluation: For intraoperative evaluation it has been presented a navigation system with a specifically developed software, while for the postoperative it has been presented the roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). The navigation system consists in a laptop connected with an optoelectronic localizer (Polaris, Northern Digital Inc, Canada).  Two reference arrays with passive optical markers and a marked probe are used to localize the knee joint in the 3D space and track the joint kinematics. The RSA is a radiographic technique used in orthopaedic field for measuring micromotion at bone/prosthesis interface or for joint kinematics evaluation. The RSA uses two X-ray sources synchronized with two digital flat-panels. CONCLUSIONS: The present paper shows that using the navigation system allows the surgeon to easily perform kinematic and alignment evaluation during TKA surgery while the RSA allows a quantitative evaluation of the joint kinematics during the recovery time.