Posterior-stabilized versus mid-level constraint polyethylene components in total knee arthroplasty.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
AIMS: Mid-level constraint designs for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are intended to reduce coronal plane laxity. Our aims were to compare kinematics and ligament forces of the Zimmer Biomet Persona posterior-stabilized (PS) and mid-level designs in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes under loads simulating clinical exams of the knee in a cadaver model. METHODS: We performed TKA on eight cadaveric knees and loaded them using a robotic manipulator. We tested both PS and mid-level designs under loads simulating clinical exams via applied varus and valgus moments, internal-external (IE) rotation moments, and anteroposterior forces at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion. We measured the resulting tibiofemoral angulations and translations. We also quantified the forces carried by the medial and lateral collateral ligaments (MCL/LCL) via serial sectioning of these structures and use of the principle of superposition. RESULTS: Mid-level inserts reduced varus angulations compared to PS inserts by a median of 0.4°, 0.9°, and 1.5° at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion, respectively, and reduced valgus angulations by a median of 0.3°, 1.0°, and 1.2° (p ≤ 0.027 for all comparisons). Mid-level inserts reduced net IE rotations by a median of 5.6°, 14.7°, and 17.5° at 0°, 30°, and 90°, respectively (p = 0.012). Mid-level inserts reduced anterior tibial translation only at 90° of flexion by a median of 3.0 millimetres (p = 0.036). With an applied varus moment, the mid-level insert decreased LCL force compared to the PS insert at all three flexion angles that were tested (p ≤ 0.036). In contrast, with a valgus moment the mid-level insert did not reduce MCL force. With an applied internal rotation moment, the mid-level insert decreased LCL force at 30° and 90° by a median of 25.7 N and 31.7 N, respectively (p = 0.017 and p = 0.012). With an external rotation moment, the mid-level insert decreased MCL force at 30° and 90° by a median of 45.7 N and 20.0 N, respectively (p ≤ 0.017 for all comparisons). With an applied anterior load, MCL and LCL forces showed no differences between the two inserts at 30° and 90° of flexion. CONCLUSION: The mid-level insert used in this study decreased coronal and axial plane laxities compared to the PS insert, but its stabilizing benefit in the sagittal plane was limited. Both mid-level and PS inserts depended on the MCL to resist anterior loads during a simulated clinical exam of anterior laxity.
