4.5 Article

In-vivo kinematics of high-flex posterior-stabilized total knee prosthesis designed for Asian populations

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
卷 40, 期 11, 页码 2295-2302

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-016-3176-5

关键词

Asian populations; Implant design; In-vivo kinematics; Posterior-stabilized; Total knee arthroplasty

资金

  1. Kyocera Medical
  2. Zimmer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine in-vivo kinematics of our developed posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee prosthesis for Asian populations in comparison with a popular high-flexion PS prosthesis. We analyzed 62 osteoarthritic knees: 31 knees with the new PS prosthesis (group A) and 31 knees with a popular high-flexion PS prosthesis (group B). Radiographic knee images were taken during standing, lunge, and kneeling activities. The three-dimensional position and orientation of the implant components were determined using model-based shape matching techniques. Group A showed slightly greater implant flexion angles compared with knees with conventional prosthesis at maximum lunge (average: 119 vs. 110A degrees, p = 0.001), and at maximum kneeling (121 vs. 114A degrees, p = 0.004), although the range of motion was not significantly different. The femoral centre positions were more posterior in group A at standing, at 90A degrees lunge, at maximum lunge (-9 and -7 mm, p = 0.004), at 90A degrees kneeling, and at maximum kneeling (-9 vs. -7 mm, p = 0.016), and posterior translations of the femoral center were greater at 90A degrees knee flexion postures. The femoral centre positions had a strong negative correlation with implant flexion angles at maximum lunge in group B (r = -0.893, p < 0.001), but not in group A (p = 0.242). The new PS prosthesis designed for Asian knee morphology achieved flexion angles and range of motion at least comparable to that of conventional high-flexion PS prosthesis. The femoral roll-back pattern, however, is different from a conventional knee, reflecting the post/cam design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据