0
Articles   |    
The Bisurface Total Knee Replacement: A Unique Design for Flexion Four-to-Nine-Year Follow-up Study*
Masao Akagi, M.D.†; Takashi Nakamura, M.D.‡; Yoshitaka Matsusue, M.D.‡; Toyoji Ueo, M.D.§; Kohichi Nishijyo, M.D.§; Eijiro Ohnishi, M.D.§
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kyoto University, Kyoto City, Japan
*No benefits have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.
†Peterson Tribology Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics, Loma Linda University, 250 Caroline, Suite H, San Bernadino, California 92408. E-mail address: massa@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.
‡Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto City 606-8507, Japan.
§Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tamatsukuri-Kohseinenkin Hospital, 1-2 Tamatsukuri, Tamayu-cho, Yatsuka County, Shimane Prefecture 699-0294, Japan.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2000; 82:1626-1626 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: The Bisurface knee prosthesis was designed in 1989 to improve knee flexion without affecting the durability of the prosthesis. The prosthesis has a unique ball-and-socket joint in the midposterior portion of the femoral and tibial components, which functions as a posterior stabilizing cam mechanism and causes femoral rollback. The femoral component was made of alumina ceramic. The purpose of this study was to review the clinical results of the first 223 arthroplasties performed with this prosthesis in order to assess whether this new implant had achieved its design objectives.

Methods: From December 1989 to May 1994, all patients who were scheduled for primary total knee arthroplasty were enrolled in a prospective study of the Bisurface knee. The patients were evaluated clinically according to The Hospital for Special Surgery knee-rating system and with a self-administered questionnaire, and they were evaluated radiographically according to the system of the Knee Society. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with revision of the knee or recommendation for revision as the end point.

Results: One hundred and sixty-six patients treated with a total of 223 consecutive primary total knee arthroplasties were enrolled in the study, and 182 knees were followed for 3.9 to 9.0 years (mean, 5.8 years). Preoperatively, the mean Hospital for Special Surgery knee score was 44.5 points. At the time of latest follow-up, the mean knee score was 86.3 points. The mean preoperative and postoperative ranges of flexion were 119 and 124 degrees, respectively. The patients, even those with a good preoperative range of motion, rarely lost deep flexion of the knee after the procedure. A revision operation was performed in eight knees (because of infection in five, instability in two, and breakage of the peg of the patellar component in one). Two knees had recurrent medial-lateral subluxations of the femorotibial articulation, which were treated nonoperatively. No prosthesis had loosened aseptically and no alumina ceramic femoral component had broken by the time of latest follow-up. The rate of survival of the implant was 94 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 90 to 98 percent) at six years. According to the patient questionnaires, 20 percent of the knees sometimes felt loose in daily living activities, which prompted us to improve the intrinsic stability of the prosthesis by improving the congruity of the ball-and-socket joint.

Conclusions: Total knee arthroplasty with the Bisurface prosthesis resulted in an excellent range of motion and a high level of satisfaction with the operation; the durability of the prosthesis is promising.

Figures in this Article
    Total knee arthroplasty is a reliable procedure for the treatment of severely damaged knee joints in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. The clinical results of total knee arthroplasty with regard to pain relief and improvement of walking ability are generally satisfactory with any type of modern knee prosthesis. However, one of the major problems to be solved is that patients, including those with a good preoperative range of motion, often lose deep flexion of the knee after the procedure23. Because gross loss of flexion can result in patients being dissatisfied with the operative outcome, in certain societies, including Japan, indications for total knee arthroplasty tend to be limited to patients with relatively poor preoperative motion.
    In 1978, the posterior stabilized condylar prosthesis was introduced, as a modification of the total condylar prosthesis, by Insall et al.13. This prosthesis was designed specifically to improve range of motion and to provide additional stability. Interaction of the intercondylar tibial spine with the transverse cam of the femoral component provides femoral rollback to avoid posterior impingement. Clinical follow-up after arthroplasties with the prosthesis demonstrated a mean range of motion of 107 to 115 degrees13,16,19,25,27. Although use of this prosthesis has substantially improved the postoperative range of flexion compared with that associated with the total condylar prosthesis13,16,25, the range of flexion was not thought to be sufficient in our country.
    The Bisurface knee prosthesis (Kyocera, Kyoto, Japan) was designed to further improve knee flexion after total knee arthroplasty without affecting the durability of the prosthesis (Fig. 1-A, Fig. 1-B, and Fig. 1-C)1,30. This prosthesis has been used at our two institutions in Japan since December 1989 and was released for general use in 1992. We reviewed the clinical results of the first 223 arthroplasties performed with this prosthesis at our institutions in order to assess whether this new implant had achieved its design objectives.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-A:Figs. 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C: Photographs of the Bisurface knee prosthesis (type 2). Note the ball-and-socket joint in the midposterior portion of the femoral and tibial components. The femoral component and the tibial tray are made of alumina ceramic and titanium alloy, respectively.
    Fig. 1-A: Anterior view.
     
     
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2-A:Figs. 2-A and 2-B: The kinematics of the Bisurface knee prosthesis. The femoral ball comes into contact with the tibial socket around 80 degrees of flexion. Contact areas of the condylar surfaces translate posteriorly (roll back) as flexion of the knee increases, while the ball-and-socket joint rotates in situ.
    Fig. 2-A: Serial radiographs of the knee with the Bisurface prosthesis.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2-B:Schematic drawings showing the kinematics of the prosthesis.
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3:Plot of postoperative range of flexion versus preoperative range of flexion. Note the relatively good relationship between preoperative and postoperative flexion (y = 68.8 + 0.46 ¥ x; coefficient of correlation, r = 0.65; p < 0.0001).
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTable I:  Relationship Between Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Knee Instability
    *HSS = The Hospital for Special Surgery.†The percentage of knees with the particular grade that was considered to feel loose by the patient.
    Objective Evaluation (HSS Knee-Rating System*)Subjective Evaluation (Feeling of Knee Looseness)
    Grade0No. (Percent)No. (Percent) of "No" ResponsesNo. (Percent) of "Yes" ResponsesPercentage of "Yes" Responses†
    None  36 (20)    34 (19)  2 (1)    0.6
    Mild (0-5 degrees)  92 (51)    86 (47)  6 (3)    0.7
    Moderate (6-15 degrees)  53 (29)    26 (14)27 (15)  51
    Severe (16 degrees or more)    1 (0.6)      0 (0)  1 (0.6)100
      Total182 (100)  146 (80)36 (20)
     
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Number of Knees with Radiolucent Lines, According to Zone and Grade
    Grade 1Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4 Prevalence
    Lateral radiograph of femur
      Zone 116414409.9
      Zone 2173  9004.9
      Zone 3182  0000.0
      Zone 4182  0000.0
      Zone 5182  0000.0
      Zone 6178  4002.2
      Zone 7171  9206.0
    Lateral radiograph of tibia
      Zone 1182  0000.0
      Zone 2176  5103.3
      Zone 3182  0000.0
    Anteroposterior radiograph of tibia
      Zone 1175  5203.8
      Zone 2179  3001.6
      Zone 3179  3001.6
      Zone 4175  4303.8
      Zone 5182  0000.0
      Zone 6182  0000.0
      Zone 7182  0000.0
    Skyline radiograph of patella
      Zone 1174  5304.4
      Zone 2175  4303.8
      Zone 3182  0000.0

    Patient Demographics

    From December 1989 to May 1994, all patients who were scheduled for primary total knee arthroplasty by two of us (T. U. and T. N.) and who were considered eligible for treatment with the Bisurface knee prosthesis were enrolled in a prospective study. Patients were not considered eligible for this type of arthroplasty if the knee had varus or valgus deformity of more than 30 degrees or flexion deformity of more than 60 degrees or if it had medial or lateral instability of more than 30 degrees. Five patients were excluded from the consecutive series on this basis, and they underwent total knee arthroplasty with a prosthesis with more constraint or with a hinge-type prosthesis. One hundred and sixty-six patients managed with a total of 223 consecutive primary total knee arthroplasties at our two institutions were enrolled in the prospective study of the Bisurface knee prosthesis.
    Seventeen patients (twenty-five knees) who had died less than four years after the procedure were excluded from the study. Four patients (four knees) were lost to follow-up. Four patients (seven knees) could not be evaluated because of comorbidities unrelated to the total knee arthroplasty. In addition, five patients (five knees) had the prosthesis removed because of postoperative complications. The remaining 182 knees in 136 patients formed the basis of the clinical and radiographic evaluation in the present study.
    The preoperative diagnoses included primary osteoarthritis in 117 knees, rheumatoid arthritis in sixty-one, posttraumatic osteoarthritis in two, avascular necrosis in one, and postseptic osteoarthritis in one. The mean age at the time of the index procedure was sixty-eight years (range, thirty-nine to eighty-four years), and the mean weight was 53.6 kilograms (range, 31.0 to 80.5 kilograms). Forty-six patients had the procedure bilaterally. Of the 136 patients, twenty-two (thirty-one knees) were male and 114 (151 knees) were female. The patients were followed for a mean of 5.8 years (range, 3.9 to 9.0 years). Lateral retinacular release was performed in eighty-five (47 percent) of the knees (forty-six patients) for appropriate tracking of the patella. Type-1 and type-2 prostheses were implanted in seventy-nine and 103 knees, respectively.

    The Implant

    The Bisurface knee (Fig. 1-A, Fig. 1-B, and Fig. 1-C) is a posterior-cruciate-substituting prosthesis that has a unique ball-and-socket joint in the midposterior portion of the femoral and tibial components. This joint functions as a posterior stabilizing cam mechanism and as a load-bearing surface in flexion, and it causes femoral rollback to avoid posterior impingement of the femoral and tibial components. The femoral ball comes into contact with the tibial socket at around 80 degrees of flexion. Therefore, when there is more than 80 degrees of flexion, the prosthesis has three contact areas on the tibial articular surface: the medial and lateral condylar surfaces and the ball-and-socket joint. The contact areas on the condylar surfaces translate posteriorly, while the ball-and-socket joint rotates in situ (Fig. 2-A and Fig. 2-B). The posterior condylar part of the tibial articular surface is flattened in the anterior-posterior direction to provide axial-rotational freedom around the ball-and-socket joint.
    The femoral component is made of alumina ceramic and has a central strut in the distal aspect to strengthen the component and to improve fixation to the femur with bone cement. The tibial component is made of titanium alloy with an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene articular insert. The thinnest part of the polyethylene articular insert is in the deepest point of the socket, the thickness of which ranges from four to ten millimeters depending on the thickness of the tibial insert, which ranges from nine to fifteen millimeters. The patellar component consists of a spherical dome made of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene and a four-cornered alumina-ceramic peg.
    The femorotibial articulation of the condyles was completely flat in the medial-lateral direction in the original design of the implant (type 1). Because the intercondylar eminence of the prosthesis is short and anteriorly placed, owing to the midposterior location of the socket on the tibial plateau, the medial-lateral stability in midflexion provided by the articular geometry was considered to be insufficient in the type-1 prosthesis. Two knees that had been replaced with the type-1 prosthesis had recurrent medial-lateral subluxations, which prompted us to modify the design to provide better medial-lateral stability. In the type-2 implant, the medial and lateral edges of the tibial insert were elevated so that the femorotibial articulation had congruity and better stability in the medial-lateral direction.

    Operative Technique and Postoperative Rehabilitation

    All implants were fixed with bone cement. The technique of alignment and soft-tissue balance was performed in a uniform manner by the two surgeons. A lateral retinacular release was performed in knees in which the patellar tracking was judged to be inadequate. The incision in the knee was closed with the knee in 100 degrees of flexion. A bulky dressing was applied with the knee in extension and was worn for the first forty-eight hours, until removal of the suction drainage. On the third day after the operation, knee flexion and extension exercises were begun in a continuous-passive-motion machine. Manipulation of the knee was performed in patients with a poor range of motion (less than 70 degrees at two weeks after the operation).

    Clinical Evaluation

    Yearly follow-up evaluation was carried out, independent of the treating surgeons, by four of us (M. A., K. N., E. O., and Y. M.). Preoperative and postoperative knee function was evaluated and rated according to The Hospital for Special Surgery knee-rating system13,22. In addition, one of us (M. A.) conducted an evaluation based on patient self-administered questionnaires. Excluding the patients who had died, each patient was sent by mail a questionnaire that specifically addressed the severity, location, and frequency of pain; subjective knee instability; the ability to perform activities of daily living; and the level of satisfaction with the operative result. If there was a discrepancy between the data on the chart and those on the questionnaire, a telephone interview was performed to clarify the matter. With regard to subjective instability of the knee, the questionnaire asked if the patient had felt looseness during his or her activities of daily living. Knee instability was also evaluated objectively according to The Hospital for Special Surgery knee-rating system, in which knee instability is graded as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Postoperative satisfaction was graded on the questionnaire as very satisfied, satisfied, partly dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied.

    Radiographic Evaluation

    Radiographs were made preoperatively, early after the operation, at six months, and at one-year intervals thereafter. Radiographs were analyzed by three of us (M. A., K. N., and Y. M.), independent of the surgeons who had performed the operative procedures. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs, which included anteroposterior and lateral radiographs and a skyline patellar radiograph, were assessed for alignment of the limb and the presence and location of any radiolucent lines at the bone-cement interface, according to the recommendation of the Knee Society7. Radiolucent lines in each zone were evaluated according to the method of Ranawat et al.19.

    Statistical Analysis

    Correlations between the preoperative and postoperative ranges of flexion were investigated with regression analysis. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was used to determine the cumulative rate of survival of the implant during the period of the study. The relationship between objective and subjective instability was investigated with use of the chi-square test.

    Clinical Results

    The mean preoperative Hospital for Special Surgery knee score was 44.5 points (range, 7 to 66 points). At the time of latest follow-up, the mean knee score was 86.3 points (range, 46 to 100 points). The clinical result was excellent for 114 knees (63 percent), good for fifty-seven (31 percent), fair for nine (5 percent), and poor for two (1 percent). One poor result was in a patient who had severe rheumatoid arthritis, and the other was in a patient who had Parkinson disease.

    Range of Motion

    The mean preoperative range of flexion was 119 degrees (range, 35 to 155 degrees). The mean postoperative range of flexion was 124 degrees (range, 60 to 155 degrees). Although the number of knees with flexion exceeding 145 degrees was reduced from thirty preoperatively to nineteen postoperatively, 70 percent (127) of the knees had postoperative flexion of more than 120 degrees. Regression analysis showed good linear dependency (coefficient of correlation, r = 0.65; p < 0.0001) between the preoperative and postoperative ranges of flexion (Fig. 3). The mean preoperative range of extension was -9.8 degrees (range, 25 to -40 degrees), and the mean postoperative range of extension was -0.3 degree (range, 10 to -25 degrees). Preoperatively, 132 knees (73 percent) had a flexion contracture (mean, 14 degrees; range, 5 to 40 degrees); postoperatively, thirty-nine knees (21 percent) had a flexion contracture (mean, 8 degrees; range, 5 to 25 degrees).

    Pain

    Seventy patients (ninety-seven knees; 53 percent) had no pain in the knee at the latest follow-up evaluation. Thirty-five patients (forty-eight knees; 26 percent) reported infrequent discomfort in the knee. Twenty-eight patients (thirty-four knees; 19 percent) reported mild pain in the knee at the beginning of motion or when walking for a long distance. Of these twenty-eight patients, thirteen took non-narcotic analgesics infrequently to control the symptom and two needed medication every day. Three patients (three knees; 2 percent) reported moderate pain in the knee during walking and needed non-narcotic analgesics every day to control the symptom. In nine patients (eleven knees; 6 percent), the pain was in the anterior aspect of the knee and was presumed to be attributable to the patellofemoral joint. There was no association between anterior knee pain and the presence of a flexion contracture. Fourteen patients (fourteen knees; 8 percent) had infrequent mild pain associated with looseness of the knee while performing daily living activities.

    Ability to Walk

    Seventy-four patients (101 knees; 55 percent) were able to walk an essentially unlimited distance (more than 1000 meters) without pain, forty-six patients (sixty knees; 33 percent) were able to walk five to ten blocks, thirteen patients (eighteen knees; 10 percent) were able to walk only in the house, and three patients (three knees; 2 percent) were unable to walk even in the house without assistance. Of these three patients, one had severe polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis, one had delayed union of a supracondylar fracture of the contralateral femur at the time of latest follow-up, and one had Parkinson disease. Sixty patients (eighty knees; 44 percent) did not need support for walking, sixty-four patients (eighty-seven knees; 48 percent) used a cane, one patient (two knees; 1 percent) used a crutch, and eight patients (ten knees; 5 percent) used a walker. The three patients (three knees; 2 percent) who were unable to walk used a wheelchair outdoors.

    Patellofemoral Articulation

    No patient had a postoperative patellar fracture or loosening of the patellar component. On examination, one knee had patellofemoral noise through the arc of the motion, and this was attributed to friction between the femoral component and the peg of the patellar component. A revision procedure was recommended for this patient at the time of latest follow-up, and the original knee replacement was recorded as a failure in the survivorship analysis. Eleven knees (6 percent) had a symptomatic patellofemoral joint.

    Instability

    In addition to the two patients who underwent a revision operation because of instability, two patients had medial-lateral subluxations of the femorotibial articulation. One patient was managed successfully with a hinged knee brace and had no recurrence during 7.5 years of follow-up. The other patient had recurrent medial subluxations but had little disability when using a hinged knee brace. These subluxations developed only with the type-1 prosthesis. According to The Hospital for Special Surgery knee-rating system, thirty-six (20 percent) of the 182 knees had no objective instability, ninety-two knees (51 percent) had mild instability, fifty-three knees (29 percent) had moderate instability, and one knee (less than 1 percent) had severe instability. According to patients' reports, 146 knees (80 percent) had good subjective stability; however, thirty-six knees (20 percent) felt loose in activities of daily living. There was a significant relationship between objective and subjective knee instability (chi-square test, p < 0.0001) (Table I). A feeling of looseness was reported in sixteen (20 percent) of the seventy-nine knees with a type-1 prosthesis and in twenty (19 percent) of the 103 knees with a type-2 prosthesis.

    Satisfaction with Outcome

    One hundred and twenty-two patients (166 knees; 91 percent) were very satisfied with the outcome of the operation, seven patients (nine knees; 5 percent) were satisfied, six patients (six knees; 3 percent) were partly dissatisfied, and one patient (one knee; less than 1 percent) was very dissatisfied. Of the six patients who were partly dissatisfied, three had instability of the knee with or without pain, one had recurrent subluxations of the knee joint and required a knee brace for knee stability, one had not regained the ability to assume a fully squatting posture, and one was confined to a wheelchair because of delayed union of a supracondylar fracture about the contralateral knee. The patient who was very dissatisfied had not regained an appreciable ability to walk after the operation, owing to Parkinson disease.

    Radiographic Results

    The mean postoperative tibiofemoral angle (the angle formed by the long axis of the tibia and the long axis of the femur) was 6 degrees of valgus (range, 5 degrees of varus to 15 degrees of valgus). No radiolucent lines were observed around the femoral strut, the tibial keel, or the patellar peg (Table II). None of the knees had a radiolucent line in more than two contiguous zones. No knee had grade-4 radiolucency at the bone-cement interface of any component. Therefore, no component in any knee that had not been revised was suspected of being loose on the basis of radiographic appearance.

    Revision Operations

    A revision operation was performed in eight knees. Five of the revisions were undertaken because of infection of the involved joint, and two of these five revisions involved replacement or removal of the prosthesis. Two additional revisions were performed because of instability; one of the two was done because of genu recurvatum that developed four years after the operation in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis, and the other was undertaken because of attenuation of the medial collateral ligament that developed 3.5 years after the operation in a patient who had osteoarthritis with severe valgus deformity. The eighth revision was performed because the peg of the patellar component broke when the patient fell on the knee. Only the patellar component was retrieved, and a new patellar component was implanted 2.8 years postoperatively.

    Survivorship Analysis

    Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed with revision of the knee or recommendation for revision as the end point. The projected rate of survival of the knee prostheses at six years was 94 percent. Forty-seven knees remained at risk, and the 95 percent confidence interval was 90 to 98 percent six years postoperatively.
    The Bisurface knee prosthesis has a unique design to improve the range of flexion: a ball-and-socket joint. This unique joint was developed by inversion of the post-and-cam mechanism of the posterior stabilized prosthesis and can provide a weight-bearing surface with the cam mechanism during flexion of more than 80 degrees. Large femoral rollback provided by the ball-and-socket joint permits maximum flexion of 140 degrees (Fig. 2-A and Fig. 2-B). Whereas the need for extensive bone loss in the intercondylar region is one of the defects of the posterior stabilized prosthesis13,25,31, the Bisurface knee requires relatively little bone loss for the femoral central strut. Posterior dislocation of the cam mechanism4,8,9,14,15 and the patellar clunk syndrome2,12 are not possible with this prosthesis.
    The mean range of motion of 124 degrees in the present group was greater than the mean range of motion of 101 to 112 degrees reported for the cruciate-retaining design21,24,28,32 and the mean range of motion of 107 to 115 degrees reported for the posterior-cruciate-substituting design13,16,19,25,27. Also, 70 percent (127) of the knees in the present study had more than 120 degrees of postoperative flexion.
    Although previous studies have shown that the preoperative range of flexion is the most important determinant of the postoperative range of flexion11,18, Wright et al.32 found that the coefficient of correlation between preoperative and postoperative flexion was only 0.37 for patients with the posterior-cruciate-retaining kinematic prosthesis. However, in the present study, regression analysis of the preoperative and postoperative ranges of flexion showed good linear dependency (coefficient of correlation, r = 0.65; p < 0.0001). This result implies that arthroplasty with the Bisurface prosthesis rarely resulted in a large loss of flexion postoperatively and that the restriction of motion caused by the articular geometry of the femorotibial joint might be reduced or almost eliminated.
    Another unique feature of the Bisurface knee is that the femoral component is made of alumina ceramic. The surface roughness of the alumina component (Ra = 0.02 micrometer) is substantially less than that of chromium-cobalt components (usually Ra = 0.05 micrometer). Furthermore, the ceramic bearing surfaces have been reported to have a good resistance to third-body wear damage and to produce the least amount of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear debris5,6,17,33. The wear property of the alumina ceramic femoral component is promising. However, the longevity of the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene insert must be investigated in long-term follow-up studies and in additional studies of retrieved components.
    Recently, cost-effectiveness of medical treatments has been an important concern. In our country, the Ministry of Public Welfare has fixed the cost of orthopaedic implants, including total knee prostheses. The official price of the alumina ceramic femoral component is only 4.7 percent higher than that of the chromium-cobalt femoral component used widely in Japan. Thus, the cost of the knee prosthesis with an alumina ceramic femoral component is almost comparable with that of the standard chromium-cobalt implant.
    There are some concerns about breakage of the alumina femoral component during and after the operation, owing to the brittleness of the ceramic material. Before clinical application, mechanical testing was carried out according to "The Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications for Ceramic Ball Hip Systems"10 devised by the United States Food and Drug Administration, and clinical application appeared to be safe on the basis of the results of that testing. In fact, none of the alumina femoral components broke in the present study. However, as the study population was limited to Japanese patients, the concern that problems with implant breakage might arise in North America or Northern Europe cannot be completely eliminated; the patient population in Japan clearly differs from that in North America or Northern Europe, especially with respect to weight.
    Excessive rollback may have several disadvantages with regard to the durability of the prosthesis. Increased translation of the femorotibial contact point can result in higher shear stresses and compressive forces on the polyethylene, possibly leading to premature fatigue failure of the polyethylene3,26,29. Although only four prostheses were retrieved by the time of writing, there was no indication of severe fatigue failure of the polyethylene articular surface. Excessive rollback also can increase rocking of the tibial component, possibly leading to early loosening of the component20. Radiographic observation in the present study demonstrated no problems with regard to component fixation with the bone cement that was used. None of the knees had grade-4 radiolucency. These results show that fixation of the tibial component enabled it to withstand the extensive rollback provided by the cam mechanism.
    The questionnaire revealed that 20 percent (thirty-six) of the knees felt somewhat loose during various daily activities. The prevalence of this mild sensation of knee instability was not reduced after we switched to the type-2 Bisurface prosthesis. These results prompted us to enhance the intrinsic stability of the prosthesis by improving the congruity of the ball-and-socket joint. This new prosthesis is called type 3-Plus and has been used since July 1998.
    In the present series, total knee arthroplasty with the Bisurface prosthesis resulted in an excellent range of motion and a high level of satisfaction with the outcome, and the durability of the prosthesis was promising. We expect that the introduction, after this study, of a modification that improved the congruity of the joint and the more correct ligamentous balance provided by a new instrumentation system will reduce the prevalence of patients who feel looseness in the knee.
    Akagi, M.; Ueo, T.; Matsusue, Y.; Akiyama, H.; and Nakamura, T.: Improved range of flexion after total knee arthroplasty. The total condylar knee versus the KU knee. Bull. Hosp. Joint Dis.,56: 225-232, 1997.56225  1997 
     
    Beight, J. L.; Yao, B.; Hozack, W. J.; Hearn, S. L.; and Booth, R. E., Jr.: The patellar "clunk" syndrome after posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop.,299: 139-142, 1994.299139  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Blunn, G. W.; Walker, P. S.; Joshi, A.; and Hardinge, K.: The dominance of cyclic sliding in producing wear in total knee replacements. Clin. Orthop.,273: 253-260, 1991.273253  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Cohen, B., and Constant, C. R.: Subluxation of the posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. A report of two cases. J. Arthroplasty,,7: 161-163, 1992.7161  1992 
     
    Cooper, J. R.; Dowson, D.; Fisher, J.; and Jobbins, B.: Ceramic bearing surfaces in total artificial joints: resistance to third body wear damage from bone cement particles. J. Med. Eng. and Technol.,15: 63-67, 1991.1563  1991 
     
    Davidson, J. A.; Poggie, R. A.; and Mishra, A. K.: Abrasive wear of ceramic, metal, and UHMWPE bearing surfaces from third-body bone, PMMA bone cement, and titanium debris. Biomed. Mater. and Eng.,4: 213-229, 1994.4213  1994 
     
    Ewald, F. C.: The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin. Orthop.,248: 9-12, 1989.2489  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Galinat, B. J.; Vernace, J. V.; Booth, R. E., Jr.; and Rothman, R. H.: Dislocation of the posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. A report of two cases. J. Arthroplasty,3: 363-367, 1988.3363  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Gebhard, J. S., and Kilgus, D. J.: Dislocation of a posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis. A report of two cases. Clin. Orthop.,254: 225-229, 1990.254225  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications for Ceramic Ball Hip Systems (DRAFT). In Draft Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications [510K]. Applications for Orthopedic Devices. Rockville, Maryland, United States Food and Drug Administration, 1995 
     
    Harvey, I. A.; Barry, K.; Kirby, S. P. J.; Johnson, R.; and Elloy, M. A.: Factors affecting the range of movement of total knee arthroplasty. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,75-B(6): 950-955, 1993.75-B(6)950  1993 
     
    Hozack, W. J.; Rothman, R. H.; Booth, R. E., Jr.; and Balderston, R. A.: The patellar clunk syndrome. A complication of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop.,241: 203-208, 1989.241203  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Insall, J. N.; Lachiewicz, P. F.; and Burstein, A. H.: The posterior stabilized condylar prosthesis: a modification of the total condylar design. Two to four-year clinical experience. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,64-A: 1317-1323, Dec 1982.64-A1317  1982 
     
    Kocmond, J. H.; Delp, S. L.; and Stern, S. H.: Stability ad range of motion of Insall-Burstein condylar prostheses. A computer simulation study. J. Arthroplasty,10: 383-388, 1995.10383  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Lombardi, A. V., Jr.; Mallory, T. H.; Vaughn, B. K.; Krugel, R.; Honkala, T. K.; Sorscher, M.; and Kolczun, M.: Dislocation following primary posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty,8: 633-639, 1993.8633  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Maloney, W. J., and Schurman, D. J.: The effects of implant design on range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Total condylar versus posterior stabilized total condylar designs. Clin. Orthop.,278: 147-152, 1992.278147  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Oonishi, H.; Aono, M.; Murata, N.; and Kushitani, S.: Alumina versus polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop., ,282: 95-104, 1992.28295  1992 
     
    Parsley, B. S.; Engh, G. A.; and Dwyer, K. A.: Preoperative flexion. Does it influence postoperative flexion after posterior-cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty?. Clin. Orthop.,275: 204-210, 1992.275204  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Ranawat, C. S.; Leussenhop, C. P.; and Rodriguez, J. A.: The press-fit condylar modular total knee system. Four-to-six-year results with a posterior-cruciate-substituting design. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,79-A: 342-348, March 1997.79-A342  1997 
     
    Ritter, M. A.; Faris, P. M.; and Keating, E. M.: Posterior cruciate ligament balancing during total knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty,3: 323-326, 1988.3323  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Ritter, M. A.; Campbell, E.; Faris, P. M.; and Keating, E. M.: Long-term survival analysis of the posterior cruciate condylar total knee arthroplasty. A 10-year evaluation. J. Arthroplasty,4: 293-296, 1989.4293  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Rorabeck, C. H.; Bourne, R. B.; and Nott, L.: The cemented kinematic-II and the non-cemented porous-coated anatomic prostheses for total knee replacement. A prospective evaluation. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,70-A: 483-490, April 1988.70-A483  1988 
     
    Schurman, D. J.; Parker, J. N.; and Ornstein, D.: Total condylar knee arthroplasty. A study of factors influencing range of motion as late as two years after arthroplasty. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,67-A: 1006-1014, Sept 1985.67-A1006  1985 
     
    Scott, R. D., and Volatile, T. B.: Twelve years' experience with posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop.,205: 100-107, 1986.205100  1986  [PubMed]
     
    Scott, W. N.; Rubinstein, M.; and Scuderi, G.: Results after knee replacement with a posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,70-A: 1163-1173, Sept 1988.70-A1163  1988 
     
    Soudry, M.; Walker, P. S.; Reilly, D. T.; Kurosawa, H.; and Sledge, C. B.: Effects of total knee replacement design on femoral-tibial contact conditions. J. Arthroplasty,1: 35-45, 1986.135  1986  [PubMed]
     
    Stern, S. H., , and Insall, J. N.: Posterior stabilized prosthesis. Results after follow-up of nine to twelve years. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,74-A: 980-986, Aug 1992.74-A980  1992 
     
    Stuart, M. J., and Rand, J. A.: Total knee arthroplasty in young adults who have rheumatoid arthritis. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,70-A: 84-87, Jan 1988.70-A84  1988 
     
    Swany, M. R., and Scott, R. D.: Posterior polyethylene wear in posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. A case study. J. Arthroplasty,8: 439-446, 1993.8439  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Ueo, T.; Yamamuro, T.; Takagi, H.;; and Miyajima, H.: A new artificial knee joint that has an articulation designed for complete knee flexion. J. Japanese Soc. Clin. Biomech.,12: 57-60, 1990.1257  1990 
     
    Vince, K. G.: Principles of condylar knee arthroplasty: issues evolving. In Instructional Course Lectures, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Vol. 42, pp. 315-324. Rosemont, Illinois, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1993. 
     
    Wright, J.; Ewald, F. C.; Walker, P. S.; Thomas, W. H.; Poss, R.; and Sledge, C. B.: Total knee arthroplasty with the kinematic prosthesis. Results after five to nine years: a follow-up note. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,72-A: 1003-1009, Aug 1990.72-A1003  1990 
     
    Yasuda, K.; Miyagi, N.; and Kaneda, K.: Low friction total knee arthroplasty with the alumina ceramic condylar prosthesis. Bull. Hosp. Joint Dis.,53: 15-21, 1993.5315  1993 
     

    Submit a comment

    Topics

    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 1-A:Figs. 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C: Photographs of the Bisurface knee prosthesis (type 2). Note the ball-and-socket joint in the midposterior portion of the femoral and tibial components. The femoral component and the tibial tray are made of alumina ceramic and titanium alloy, respectively.
    Fig. 1-A: Anterior view.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2-A:Figs. 2-A and 2-B: The kinematics of the Bisurface knee prosthesis. The femoral ball comes into contact with the tibial socket around 80 degrees of flexion. Contact areas of the condylar surfaces translate posteriorly (roll back) as flexion of the knee increases, while the ball-and-socket joint rotates in situ.
    Fig. 2-A: Serial radiographs of the knee with the Bisurface prosthesis.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 2-B:Schematic drawings showing the kinematics of the prosthesis.
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
    +Fig. 3:Plot of postoperative range of flexion versus preoperative range of flexion. Note the relatively good relationship between preoperative and postoperative flexion (y = 68.8 + 0.46 ¥ x; coefficient of correlation, r = 0.65; p < 0.0001).
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTable I:  Relationship Between Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Knee Instability
    *HSS = The Hospital for Special Surgery.†The percentage of knees with the particular grade that was considered to feel loose by the patient.
    Objective Evaluation (HSS Knee-Rating System*)Subjective Evaluation (Feeling of Knee Looseness)
    Grade0No. (Percent)No. (Percent) of "No" ResponsesNo. (Percent) of "Yes" ResponsesPercentage of "Yes" Responses†
    None  36 (20)    34 (19)  2 (1)    0.6
    Mild (0-5 degrees)  92 (51)    86 (47)  6 (3)    0.7
    Moderate (6-15 degrees)  53 (29)    26 (14)27 (15)  51
    Severe (16 degrees or more)    1 (0.6)      0 (0)  1 (0.6)100
      Total182 (100)  146 (80)36 (20)
    Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Number of Knees with Radiolucent Lines, According to Zone and Grade
    Grade 1Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4 Prevalence
    Lateral radiograph of femur
      Zone 116414409.9
      Zone 2173  9004.9
      Zone 3182  0000.0
      Zone 4182  0000.0
      Zone 5182  0000.0
      Zone 6178  4002.2
      Zone 7171  9206.0
    Lateral radiograph of tibia
      Zone 1182  0000.0
      Zone 2176  5103.3
      Zone 3182  0000.0
    Anteroposterior radiograph of tibia
      Zone 1175  5203.8
      Zone 2179  3001.6
      Zone 3179  3001.6
      Zone 4175  4303.8
      Zone 5182  0000.0
      Zone 6182  0000.0
      Zone 7182  0000.0
    Skyline radiograph of patella
      Zone 1174  5304.4
      Zone 2175  4303.8
      Zone 3182  0000.0
    Akagi, M.; Ueo, T.; Matsusue, Y.; Akiyama, H.; and Nakamura, T.: Improved range of flexion after total knee arthroplasty. The total condylar knee versus the KU knee. Bull. Hosp. Joint Dis.,56: 225-232, 1997.56225  1997 
     
    Beight, J. L.; Yao, B.; Hozack, W. J.; Hearn, S. L.; and Booth, R. E., Jr.: The patellar "clunk" syndrome after posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop.,299: 139-142, 1994.299139  1994  [PubMed]
     
    Blunn, G. W.; Walker, P. S.; Joshi, A.; and Hardinge, K.: The dominance of cyclic sliding in producing wear in total knee replacements. Clin. Orthop.,273: 253-260, 1991.273253  1991  [PubMed]
     
    Cohen, B., and Constant, C. R.: Subluxation of the posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. A report of two cases. J. Arthroplasty,,7: 161-163, 1992.7161  1992 
     
    Cooper, J. R.; Dowson, D.; Fisher, J.; and Jobbins, B.: Ceramic bearing surfaces in total artificial joints: resistance to third body wear damage from bone cement particles. J. Med. Eng. and Technol.,15: 63-67, 1991.1563  1991 
     
    Davidson, J. A.; Poggie, R. A.; and Mishra, A. K.: Abrasive wear of ceramic, metal, and UHMWPE bearing surfaces from third-body bone, PMMA bone cement, and titanium debris. Biomed. Mater. and Eng.,4: 213-229, 1994.4213  1994 
     
    Ewald, F. C.: The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin. Orthop.,248: 9-12, 1989.2489  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Galinat, B. J.; Vernace, J. V.; Booth, R. E., Jr.; and Rothman, R. H.: Dislocation of the posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. A report of two cases. J. Arthroplasty,3: 363-367, 1988.3363  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Gebhard, J. S., and Kilgus, D. J.: Dislocation of a posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis. A report of two cases. Clin. Orthop.,254: 225-229, 1990.254225  1990  [PubMed]
     
    Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications for Ceramic Ball Hip Systems (DRAFT). In Draft Guidance Document for the Preparation of Premarket Notifications [510K]. Applications for Orthopedic Devices. Rockville, Maryland, United States Food and Drug Administration, 1995 
     
    Harvey, I. A.; Barry, K.; Kirby, S. P. J.; Johnson, R.; and Elloy, M. A.: Factors affecting the range of movement of total knee arthroplasty. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,75-B(6): 950-955, 1993.75-B(6)950  1993 
     
    Hozack, W. J.; Rothman, R. H.; Booth, R. E., Jr.; and Balderston, R. A.: The patellar clunk syndrome. A complication of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop.,241: 203-208, 1989.241203  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Insall, J. N.; Lachiewicz, P. F.; and Burstein, A. H.: The posterior stabilized condylar prosthesis: a modification of the total condylar design. Two to four-year clinical experience. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,64-A: 1317-1323, Dec 1982.64-A1317  1982 
     
    Kocmond, J. H.; Delp, S. L.; and Stern, S. H.: Stability ad range of motion of Insall-Burstein condylar prostheses. A computer simulation study. J. Arthroplasty,10: 383-388, 1995.10383  1995  [PubMed]
     
    Lombardi, A. V., Jr.; Mallory, T. H.; Vaughn, B. K.; Krugel, R.; Honkala, T. K.; Sorscher, M.; and Kolczun, M.: Dislocation following primary posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty,8: 633-639, 1993.8633  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Maloney, W. J., and Schurman, D. J.: The effects of implant design on range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Total condylar versus posterior stabilized total condylar designs. Clin. Orthop.,278: 147-152, 1992.278147  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Oonishi, H.; Aono, M.; Murata, N.; and Kushitani, S.: Alumina versus polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop., ,282: 95-104, 1992.28295  1992 
     
    Parsley, B. S.; Engh, G. A.; and Dwyer, K. A.: Preoperative flexion. Does it influence postoperative flexion after posterior-cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty?. Clin. Orthop.,275: 204-210, 1992.275204  1992  [PubMed]
     
    Ranawat, C. S.; Leussenhop, C. P.; and Rodriguez, J. A.: The press-fit condylar modular total knee system. Four-to-six-year results with a posterior-cruciate-substituting design. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,79-A: 342-348, March 1997.79-A342  1997 
     
    Ritter, M. A.; Faris, P. M.; and Keating, E. M.: Posterior cruciate ligament balancing during total knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty,3: 323-326, 1988.3323  1988  [PubMed]
     
    Ritter, M. A.; Campbell, E.; Faris, P. M.; and Keating, E. M.: Long-term survival analysis of the posterior cruciate condylar total knee arthroplasty. A 10-year evaluation. J. Arthroplasty,4: 293-296, 1989.4293  1989  [PubMed]
     
    Rorabeck, C. H.; Bourne, R. B.; and Nott, L.: The cemented kinematic-II and the non-cemented porous-coated anatomic prostheses for total knee replacement. A prospective evaluation. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,70-A: 483-490, April 1988.70-A483  1988 
     
    Schurman, D. J.; Parker, J. N.; and Ornstein, D.: Total condylar knee arthroplasty. A study of factors influencing range of motion as late as two years after arthroplasty. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,67-A: 1006-1014, Sept 1985.67-A1006  1985 
     
    Scott, R. D., and Volatile, T. B.: Twelve years' experience with posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop.,205: 100-107, 1986.205100  1986  [PubMed]
     
    Scott, W. N.; Rubinstein, M.; and Scuderi, G.: Results after knee replacement with a posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,70-A: 1163-1173, Sept 1988.70-A1163  1988 
     
    Soudry, M.; Walker, P. S.; Reilly, D. T.; Kurosawa, H.; and Sledge, C. B.: Effects of total knee replacement design on femoral-tibial contact conditions. J. Arthroplasty,1: 35-45, 1986.135  1986  [PubMed]
     
    Stern, S. H., , and Insall, J. N.: Posterior stabilized prosthesis. Results after follow-up of nine to twelve years. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,74-A: 980-986, Aug 1992.74-A980  1992 
     
    Stuart, M. J., and Rand, J. A.: Total knee arthroplasty in young adults who have rheumatoid arthritis. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,70-A: 84-87, Jan 1988.70-A84  1988 
     
    Swany, M. R., and Scott, R. D.: Posterior polyethylene wear in posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. A case study. J. Arthroplasty,8: 439-446, 1993.8439  1993  [PubMed]
     
    Ueo, T.; Yamamuro, T.; Takagi, H.;; and Miyajima, H.: A new artificial knee joint that has an articulation designed for complete knee flexion. J. Japanese Soc. Clin. Biomech.,12: 57-60, 1990.1257  1990 
     
    Vince, K. G.: Principles of condylar knee arthroplasty: issues evolving. In Instructional Course Lectures, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Vol. 42, pp. 315-324. Rosemont, Illinois, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1993. 
     
    Wright, J.; Ewald, F. C.; Walker, P. S.; Thomas, W. H.; Poss, R.; and Sledge, C. B.: Total knee arthroplasty with the kinematic prosthesis. Results after five to nine years: a follow-up note. J. Bone and Joint Surg.,72-A: 1003-1009, Aug 1990.72-A1003  1990 
     
    Yasuda, K.; Miyagi, N.; and Kaneda, K.: Low friction total knee arthroplasty with the alumina ceramic condylar prosthesis. Bull. Hosp. Joint Dis.,53: 15-21, 1993.5315  1993 
     
    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe




    Related Articles
    Related Cases
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    12/22/2011
    VA - Charleston Area Medical Center
    12/22/2011
    ME - Central Maine Medical Center