Jth. Chew et al., DIFFERENCES IN PATELLAR TRACKING AND KNEE KINEMATICS AMONG 3 DIFFERENT TOTAL KNEE DESIGNS, Clinical orthopaedics and related research, (345), 1997, pp. 87-98
Patellar complications are the primary reason for reoperation of the c
urrent condylar type designs. The aim of this study was to compare pat
ellar tracking of various knee implant designs: Genesis II NexGen, and
the P.F.C. Sigma Modular Knee System regarding trochlear groove cente
r curvature. Nine unembalmed whole cadaveric lower extremities were us
ed. The quadriceps and hamstrings were dissected into their individual
muscles and loads were applied onto the muscles proximally based on t
he cross sectional area of the muscles. The three-dimensional kinemati
cs of the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joint of the intact knee wer
e measured using a 3Space tracking system. Three implants (one from ea
ch company) were implanted onto the same cadaveric knee in random orde
r consecutively. This was done to ensure consistency of the soft tissu
e constraints in influencing the amount of patellar tracking. Patellar
rotation, patellar tilting, patellar lateral shift and patellar displ
acement in relation to groove center were measured. There was no signi
ficant difference between the intact knee and the various implants reg
arding patellar rotation and lateral shift. However, all three prosthe
tic designs showed a significant degree of lateral tilting when compar
ed with the intact knee. At 60 degrees knee flexion, the normal patell
a was tilted laterally to 0.44 degrees +/- 2.15 degrees as compared wi
th the Genesis II patella at 4.75 degrees +/- 4.81 degrees, the NexGen
patella at 4.85 degrees +/- 4.81 degrees, and the P.F.C. Sigma patell
a at 4.89 degrees +/- 3.79 degrees lateral tilt. There was no differen
ce between the intact knee compared with the resurfaced patella in pat
ellar displacement in relation to the groove center. This study sugges
ts the relatively similar kinematic behavior between the implant desig
ns as compared with the intact knees. However, additional modification
of implant geometry may be required to help decrease the amount of pa
tellar tilt.