0
Scientific Article   |    
In Vivo Three-Dimensional Determination of Kinematics for Subjects with a Normal Knee or a Unicompartmental or Total Knee Replacement
Douglas Dennis, MD; Richard Komistek, PhD; Giles Scuderi, MD; Jean-Noel Argenson, MD; John Insall, MD; Mohamed Mahfouz, MS; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac, MD; Brian Haas, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Douglas Dennis, MD
Richard Komistek, PhD
Mohamed Mahfouz, MS
Brian Haas, MD
Rocky Mountain Musculoskeletal Research Laboratory, 2425 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 280, Denver, CO 80222

Giles Scuderi, MD
170 East End Avenue at 87th Street, New York, NY 10128

Jean-Noel Argenson, MD
Jean-Manuel Aubaniac, MD
Service de Chirurgie Orthopedique, Hôpital Sainte-Marguerite, 13274 Marseille, CEDEX 09, France

John Insall, MD
Deceased

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia, and Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.  2001; 83:S104-115 
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case
Understanding the in vivo motions of human joints has become increasingly important. Researchers have used in vitro (cadavers), noninvasive (gait laboratories), and in vivo (fluoroscopy) approaches to assess human knee motion. Unfortunately, previous attempts have been unable to track the in vivo bearing-surface motion of the medial and lateral condyles of the normal knee in three dimensions. The objective of this study was to use fluoroscopy and computed tomography to accurately determine the three-dimensional, in vivo, weight-bearing motion of the normal knee.

Methods

Five normal knees, clinically determined to have no pain or ligamentous laxity, were analyzed. With use of computed tomography scanning, slices of the femur beginning 6 in (15.2 cm) proximal to the joint line and slices of 6 in of the proximal part of the tibia (1.0-mm slices near the bearing surfaces and 3.0-mm slices elsewhere) were obtained (Fig. 1). Three-dimensional bone models (Fig. 2-A) of each subject’s femur, tibia, patella, and fibula were recreated from the three-dimensional volume data (Fig. 2-B). Each subject was then asked to perform five weight-bearing activities—deep knee bend, normal gait, rising from a chair, sitting down in a chair, and descending stairs—while under fluoroscopic surveillance. The fluoroscopic images of each knee during each activity were downloaded to a computer workstation. The computer-generated three-dimensional models of each subject’s femur and tibia were overlaid onto the two-dimensional fluoroscopic images and subsequently were analyzed at various knee-flexion angles. For each activity, femorotibial contact paths were determined for both the medial and the lateral condyle and were plotted with respect to knee-flexion angle. Femorotibial contact anterior to the tibial midline in the sagittal plane was denoted as positive, and posterior contact was denoted as negative.

Results

During all five activities, there was significantly more motion of the lateral condyle than of the medial condyle (p < 0.001). During gait, the lateral condyle moved an average of 7.3 mm, while the medial condyle moved an average of only 0.8 mm. During three of the four deep flexion activities, the medial condyle moved minimally; the exception was rising from a chair, during which there was an average of 3.8 mm of motion. In contrast, the lateral condyle moved substantially during the deep flexion activities, with translation of up to 25.2 mm during chair-sitting. The medial condyle moved substantially in certain subjects, with one subject experiencing more medial motion than lateral motion.

Discussion

The present study is the first in which medial and lateral femorotibial contact pathways (three-dimensional kinematics) of the normal knee were accurately determined under in vivo, weight-bearing conditions with use of fluoroscopy and a computer model-fitting process. The results from this study demonstrated that the three-dimensional kinematic patterns of normal knees are significantly different from the kinematic patterns in previously published studies pertaining to posterior-cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee replacements (p < 0.05). During all five activities, the lateral condyle had significantly more anterior-posterior translation, leading to normal axial rotation of the tibia relative to the femur. Although on the average a medial pivot pattern was predominant, there was variability among subjects with regard to the presence of substantial translation of the medial condyle.
Controversy remains regarding the effectiveness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Some research studies have shown unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to be unsuccessful, while others have demonstrated it to be a viable option in specific cases. Other studies have demonstrated a high prevalence of radiolucent lines associated with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The main failure mode of unicompartmental knee replacements has been polyethylene wear. However, although rates of failure due to polyethylene wear have been high in some studies, other investigators have reported excellent results and have highly recommended unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Recently, fluoroscopy has been used to evaluate in vivo motions of total knee replacements. The previous fluoroscopic analyses focused on the kinematics of posterior-cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee replacements. During these studies, it was determined that a paradoxical anterior slide occurs during gait and deep flexion activities in subjects with a posterior-cruciate-retaining total knee replacement and during gait in subjects with a posterior stabilized total knee replacement. From these studies, it has been hypothesized that the anterior cruciate ligament plays an important role in knee kinematics. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to analyze the kinematics of unicompartmental knee replacements in knees in which the anterior cruciate ligament was intact at the time of the operative procedure.

Methods

In vivo kinematics were determined for twenty subjects who had been treated with a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty by the same surgeon. Seventeen knees were implanted with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement, and three were implanted with a lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. All of the knee arthroplasties were judged to be clinically successful (a Hospital for Special Surgery score of >90 points), with no ligamentous laxity or pain. Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each subject was asked to perform successive weight-bearing deep knee bends to maximum flexion. The fluoroscopic images were stored on videotape for subsequent redigitization with use of a frame-grabber. The kinematics were assessed at full knee extension and at 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90° of knee flexion.
The contact position between the medial condyle (in the patients with a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty) or the lateral condyle (for those with a lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty) and the tibia was determined with use of a three-dimensional model-fitting technique. The fluoroscopic images were captured onto a workstation computer. The three-dimensional computer-aided-design solid models of the femoral and tibial components were overlaid onto the two-dimensional fluoroscopic perspective images (Fig. 3). Once the three-dimensional components were fit, the medial or lateral femorotibial contact position was determined with respect to the midline of the tibia in the sagittal plane (Figs. 4 and 5). A contact position anterior to the midline was denoted as positive, and a position posterior was denoted as negative. The coronal view was used to assess axial rotation. The angle between the longitudinal axis that passes through the femoral component of the unicompartmental knee replacement (posterior to anterior) and the fixed axis through the tibial component was measured (Figs. 6 and 7).

Results

Anteroposterior Translation

On the average, subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement had minimal motion, but the kinematic patterns varied among the subjects (Fig. 8). The average contact position in subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement was 0.0 mm (range, 10.7 to -6.8 mm) at full extension, -1.4 mm (range, 10.5 to -9.8 mm) at 15° of knee flexion, -2.1 mm (range, 6.4 to -10.5 mm) at 30° of knee flexion, -3.1 mm (range, 4.9 to -12.7 mm) at 45° of knee flexion, -2.1 mm (range, 2.7 to -9.9 mm) at 60° of knee flexion, -1.2 mm (range, 2.5 to -5.4 mm) at 75° of knee flexion, and -0.8 mm (range, 3.3 to -5.4 mm) at 90° of knee flexion. The variability in the data decreased as the flexion angle increased. Seven of the seventeen subjects had posterior femoral rollback of the medial condyle from full extension to 90° of knee flexion. Five of the seventeen subjects had minimal motion (<1.0 mm) of the medial condyle and another five had an anterior slide of the medial condyle from full extension to 90° of knee flexion. At full extension, eight of the seventeen subjects had anterior contact of the medial condyle. All eight of these subjects had either minimal motion of the medial condyle or posterior femoral rollback of the medial condyle.
On the average, subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee replacement had posterior femoral rollback (Fig. 9). The average contact position for subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was -1.95 mm (range, 0.0 to -3.9 mm) at full extension, -5.1 mm (range, -2.7 to -6.4 mm) at 15° of knee flexion, -5.1 mm (range, -1.6 to -6.9 mm) at 30° of knee flexion, -5.8 mm (range, -1.1 to -9.9 mm) at 45° of knee flexion, -6.7 mm (range, -1.0 to -11.2 mm) at 60° of knee flexion, -6.0 mm (range, -1.2 to -11.8 mm) at 75° of knee flexion, and -4.5 mm (range, -0.6 to -9.4 mm) at 90° of knee flexion. On the average, there was increased rollback of the lateral condyle in the posterior direction from full extension to 60° of knee flexion. From 60° to 75° of knee flexion, minimal motion of the lateral condyle was detected on the average, and from 75° to 90° of knee flexion, an average of 1.5 mm of anterior motion was detected. As stated earlier, with both medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty there were variable kinematic patterns, with an anterior slide with increasing knee flexion (especially with medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty) occurring at either 30° or 60° of knee flexion.

Axial Tibiofemoral Rotation

On the average, subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement had, on the average, normal axial rotation of 3.3° from full extension to 90° of knee flexion (Fig. 10). Subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee replacement also had, on the average, normal axial rotation of 11.2° (Fig. 11). Twelve of the seventeen subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement had normal axial rotation from full extension to 90° of knee flexion. Two of the seventeen subjects had minimal axial rotation (<1.0°), and three of the seventeen had an opposite axial rotation. Two of the three subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty had normal axial rotation from full extension to 90° of knee flexion. One of the three subjects had an opposite axial rotation. Axial rotation patterns, similar to anteroposterior translation, were variable, with normal and opposite rotation patterns occurring at varying flexion angles.

Discussion

The results from this study were surprising and suggest that progressive laxity of the anterior cruciate ligament may occur over time. Previously, other researchers reported that the anterior cruciate ligament plays a substantial role in knee kinematics. In our study, it appeared that eight subjects had an anterior contact position at full extension, which may lead to the hypothesis that the anterior cruciate ligament was not functioning properly in twelve subjects, since the anterior cruciate ligament was unable to provide an anterior constraint force with the necessary magnitude to thrust the femur in the anterior direction at full extension. This suggests inconsistent function of the anterior cruciate ligament following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and may account, at least in part, for the premature polyethylene wear occasionally seen after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Therefore, our results support the findings of other studies that the anterior cruciate ligament plays an important role in maintaining satisfactory knee kinematics, which also may, in part, contribute to the longevity of unicompartmental knee replacement.
The objective of this study was to determine the presence of condylar lift-off in a group of patients who had a conforming posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis, which was implanted with attention to positioning of the femoral component along the epicondylar axis. The hypothesis was that condylar lift-off is related to the rotational position of the femoral component.

Methods

Twenty-five patients received a Legacy Posterior Stabilized knee prosthesis (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana), with the implantation performed by two surgeons (J.I. and G.S.) with a similar technique. With use of the classic method of bone resection and the appropriate soft-tissue releases, the femoral component rotation was positioned along the epicondylar axis. The femoral instrumentation was posterior, referenced so that the variable resection was anterior, and the goal was to create a reproducibly tight and symmetrical flexion space. All of the total knee arthroplasties were judged to be clinically successful, with Hospital for Special Surgery and Knee Society scores of >90 points.
Condylar lift-off was assessed for all patients, and a second analysis was conducted on the five subjects with the maximum amounts of condylar lift-off. Each subject was asked to perform three successive deep knee bends to maximum flexion under fluoroscopic surveillance in the sagittal plane (Fig. 12). Each subject placed the foot of the leg to be studied on a designated marker. The subjects were initially examined fluoroscopically with the knee at full extension and then throughout the flexion cycle.

Three-Dimensional Interactive Model-Fitting Technique

Individual fluoroscopic frames at specified degrees of flexion were digitized. The images were projected onto the image plane, and the corresponding implant models were added to the scene. The operator initially positioned the models in the fluoroscopic scene, and then the iterative model-fitting algorithm accurately fit both the femoral and the tibial component (Fig. 13). The correct fit was achieved when the silhouettes of the femoral and tibial components perfectly matched the corresponding components on the fluoroscopic image (Fig. 14). The pose of each component was then recorded, and measurements of interest were extracted with use of a computer-aided-design modeling program. The process was performed at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion, and the distances from the medial and lateral condyles to the tibial plateau were measured. The difference between these two measurements was denoted as condylar lift-off.

Computed Tomography Scanning

Each subject in the study was then reanalyzed with 1.0-mm computed tomography slices to determine if the femoral component of the total knee arthroplasty was malaligned relative to the transepicondylar axis. Using the slice that allows for the determination of the transepicondylar axis, an angle was measured from the transepicondylar axis to the femoral condylar axis (Fig. 15). This angle was then correlated with the lift-off values determined with the model-fitting process.

Results

Condylar Lift-Off

Ten (40%) of the twenty-five subjects in this study had condylar lift-off at one of the four flexion angles (Table I). Of the twenty-five subjects, five had condylar lift-off, which was medial in one and lateral in four, at full extension. Six had condylar lift-off, which was medial in two and lateral in four, at 30° of knee flexion. At 60° of knee flexion, four subjects had condylar lift-off, which was medial in one and lateral in three, and at 90° of knee flexion, five had condylar lift-off, which was medial in three and lateral in two. Condylar lift-off occurred predominantly on the lateral side. In the twenty-five patients, the average amount of condylar lift-off was 0.6, 0.6, 0.5, and 0.5 mm at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion, respectively. In the subjects with condylar lift-off, the average amount was 1.3, 1.3, 1.6, and 1.1, respectively. The average amount of condylar lift-off determined at any angle, in the subjects who had lift-off, was 1.3 mm. The maximum amount of condylar lift-off was 2.3 mm.
A second trial was conducted on the subjects in whom the largest amount of lift-off had been identified in the first trial (Table II). Each subject had very similar amounts of condylar lift-off during the two trials, and lift-off of the same condyle occurred in each of the five subjects. The maximum amounts of lift-off in each of these five subjects averaged 1.9 mm during the first trial and 1.7 mm during the second.

Axial Tibiofemoral Rotation

Axial tibiofemoral rotation was correlated with condylar lift-off for each subject who had lift-off (Fig. 16). This correlation was conducted to ensure that extreme internal/external rotation of the femoral component on the tibia, which could lead to the presumption of lift-off, was not occurring. If the lateral condyle was more anterior than the medial condyle, the angle was denoted as negative, and if the lateral condyle was more posterior than the medial condyle, the angle was denoted as positive. The average amount of axial tibiofemoral rotation was -1.5° (range, 4.7° to -9.4°), -0.3° (range, 5.0° to -9.9°), 0.1° (range, 5.2° to -4.7°), and 0.5° (range, 8.1° to -7.8°) at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion, respectively. During the full deep knee bend, the average amount of axial tibiofemoral rotation was 2.0° (range, 14.3° to -3.8°). Nineteen of the twenty-five subjects had normal axial tibiofemoral rotation from 0° to 90° of knee flexion, whereas six subjects had an opposite axial tibiofemoral rotation. On the basis of these results, it was determined that, at each occurrence of condylar lift-off, minimal axial tibiofemoral rotation was present.

Anteroposterior Translation

We also analyzed the anteroposterior translation of both the medial and the lateral condyle for the twenty-five subjects. A contact position anterior to the midline of the tibia in the sagittal plane was denoted as positive, and a position posterior was negative. The average anteroposterior position of the medial condyle was -5.4 mm (range, -0.5 to -10.1 mm), -7.1 mm (range, -3.7 to -12.6 mm), -6.7 mm (range, -3.1 to -10.5 mm), and -7.1 mm (range, -2.9 to -11.6 mm) at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion, respectively (Fig. 17). The average anteroposterior position for the lateral condyle was -4.2 mm (range, 0.3 to -12.2 mm), -6.9 mm (range, -2.0 to -11.5 mm), -6.8 mm (range, -3.7 to -10.2 mm), and -7.5 mm (range, -1.9 to -13.4 mm) at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion, respectively. On the average, there was posterior femoral rollback of the medial condyle from 0° to 30° of knee flexion (1.4 mm), but the medial condyle remained relatively stationary from 30° to 60° (-0.4 mm) and from 60° to 90° (0.4 mm) of knee flexion. From 0° to 30° of knee flexion, the lateral condyle rolled in the posterior direction, 2.3 mm on the average, but it remained stationary from 30° to 60° (-0.1 mm) and it rolled more posteriorly from 60° to 90° (0.7 mm) of knee flexion. During the full deep knee bend, the medial condyle rolled an average of 1.7 mm (range, -3.1 to 8.2 mm) posteriorly and the lateral condyle rolled an average of 3.3 mm (range, -2.9 to 13.5 mm) posteriorly.

Computed Tomography Scanning

A comparison of condylar lift-off and femoral component alignment was performed for only twenty-six of the thirty trials. During eighteen (69%) of the twenty-six trials, there was a correlation between femoral condylar lift-off and malalignment of the femoral component with the transepicondylar axis.

Discussion

Numerous analyses of the abduction and adduction moments at the knee during normal gait have been conducted. It has been reported that an abduction moment occurs at heel strike but quickly reverses to an adduction moment throughout the remainder of stance phase. This adduction moment has been shown to have an estimated magnitude between 36 and 50 N, increasing if coexisting varus deformity is present. During the midstance phase of gait, the medial compressive loads increase to a range of 70% to 75% of the load at the knee, secondary to the adduction moment occurring at midstance. In order to resist this adduction moment, numerous compensatory mechanisms are active at the knee joint. These mechanisms include: (1) redistribution of the condylar loads, (2) co-contraction of antagonist muscle groups, (3) increased tension in the lateral convex soft tissues, (4) increased tension in the cruciate ligaments, (5) increased swaying of the body in the lateral direction, (6) decreased stride length, and (7) decreased inversion moment at the ankle accomplished by out-toeing. Although, these compensatory mechanisms aid in knee stabilization, they may lead to increased joint reaction forces at the knee. If these compensatory mechanisms are inadequate, femoral condylar lift-off may occur.
The findings in this study support our impression that both surgical technique and implant design influence femoral condylar lift-off. With use of the classic method of bone resection, alignment of the femoral component along the epicondylar axis will facilitate creation of a symmetrical and balanced flexion space. This technique, along with consistently measured posterior resection, will create a tight flexion space. Although some lift-off might occur, it will be less frequent and of a lesser magnitude than that occurring with techniques that do not position the femoral component in the appropriate degree of rotation or include a variable resection of the posterior femoral condyles. Even with adherence to these principles, it may be difficult to be technically perfect. Correlation of the fluoroscopic images and the computed tomography measurements demonstrates that the accuracy of this alignment technique, within 2°, is acceptable.
If condylar lift-off does occur, it may be beneficial to have a prosthesis that was designed with a conforming frontal articulation. The present observations show that, when lift-off occurs with a round-on-round articulation, the conformity of the articulation eliminates the edge-loading that has been observed on flat-on-flat and flat-on-round designs. A posterior-cruciate-substituting prosthesis with a conforming round-on-round articulation eliminates the kinematic conflict of articular conformity that is seen with cruciate-retaining implant designs.
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that there is a correlation between condylar lift-off and rotational alignment of the femoral component. Reducing lift-off with a conforming articulation reduces edge-loading and in turn should reduce polyethylene damage.
Acknowledgments: National Science Foundation; Zimmer; Radiographic & Data Solutions, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 1:Computed tomography slice of a normal knee.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2-A:Three-dimensional computed-aided-design models of the normal patella, femur, tibia, and fibula generated from a computed tomography scan.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2-B:Three-dimensional volume data generated from a computed tomography scan.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 3:An example of a fluoroscopic image of a unicompartmental knee replacement (left) and the three-dimensional overlay (right).
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 4:Technique used to determine anteroposterior translation in unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 5:Example of three-dimensional anteroposterior motion in a subject with a unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6:Technique used to determine axial rotation of the unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 7:Top view depicting axial rotation in a subject with a unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 8:Average anteroposterior (AP) contact positions in the sagittal plane in subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 9:Average anteroposterior (AP) contact positions in the sagittal plane in subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 10:Average axial rotation pattern in subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 11:Average axial rotation pattern in subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 12:Patient performing a deep knee bend under fluoroscopic surveillance.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 13:An example of the three-dimensional automated model-fitting process.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 14:The fluoroscopic image is brought into the computer scene (top left), and the three-dimensional femoral and tibial components are overlaid onto the two-dimensional fluoroscopic image (top right). Then the grouped components are rotated to an orthogonal view (bottom left) and to a pure frontal view (bottom right).
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 15:Process used to determine the angle between the transepicondylar and femoral condylar axes.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 16:At each occurrence of condylar lift-off, axial tibiofemoral rotation (bottom left) was assessed to determine the anteroposterior positioning of the medial and lateral condyles. The subject in this figure had >2 mm of condylar lift-off (bottom right), and the contact positions of the medial and lateral condyles were within 1 mm of each other in the sagittal plane (bottom left).
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 17:The average anteroposterior (AP) translation for subjects with a Legacy Posterior Stabilized total knee replacement.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Lift-Off Amounts (mm) in the Ten Subjects with Condylar Lift-Off*
Subject0° Flex.30° Flex.60° Flex.90° Flex.
?1NL1.5NL0.9
?4NLNL1.11.0
?52.30.8NLNL
?71.3NL1.1NL
10NL1.4NL1.5
141.21.0NLNL
18NL1.92.1NL
191.1NL2.0NL
200.81.3NL1.0
23NLNLNL1.3
*Bold values denote medial lift-off, and NL denotes no condylar lift-off.
 
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Maximum Lift-Off Amounts (mm) in the First and Second Trials for the Five Subjects with Maximum Lift-Off*
SubjectTrial 1Trial 2
?11.51.5
?52.32.2
101.51.8
182.11.6
192.01.6
*Bold values denote medial lift-off.

Submit a comment

Topics

Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 1:Computed tomography slice of a normal knee.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2-A:Three-dimensional computed-aided-design models of the normal patella, femur, tibia, and fibula generated from a computed tomography scan.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 2-B:Three-dimensional volume data generated from a computed tomography scan.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 3:An example of a fluoroscopic image of a unicompartmental knee replacement (left) and the three-dimensional overlay (right).
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 4:Technique used to determine anteroposterior translation in unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 5:Example of three-dimensional anteroposterior motion in a subject with a unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 6:Technique used to determine axial rotation of the unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 7:Top view depicting axial rotation in a subject with a unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 8:Average anteroposterior (AP) contact positions in the sagittal plane in subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 9:Average anteroposterior (AP) contact positions in the sagittal plane in subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 10:Average axial rotation pattern in subjects with a medial unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 11:Average axial rotation pattern in subjects with a lateral unicompartmental knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 12:Patient performing a deep knee bend under fluoroscopic surveillance.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 13:An example of the three-dimensional automated model-fitting process.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 14:The fluoroscopic image is brought into the computer scene (top left), and the three-dimensional femoral and tibial components are overlaid onto the two-dimensional fluoroscopic image (top right). Then the grouped components are rotated to an orthogonal view (bottom left) and to a pure frontal view (bottom right).
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 15:Process used to determine the angle between the transepicondylar and femoral condylar axes.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 16:At each occurrence of condylar lift-off, axial tibiofemoral rotation (bottom left) was assessed to determine the anteroposterior positioning of the medial and lateral condyles. The subject in this figure had >2 mm of condylar lift-off (bottom right), and the contact positions of the medial and lateral condyles were within 1 mm of each other in the sagittal plane (bottom left).
Anchor for JumpAnchor for Jump
+Fig. 17:The average anteroposterior (AP) translation for subjects with a Legacy Posterior Stabilized total knee replacement.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE I:  Lift-Off Amounts (mm) in the Ten Subjects with Condylar Lift-Off*
Subject0° Flex.30° Flex.60° Flex.90° Flex.
?1NL1.5NL0.9
?4NLNL1.11.0
?52.30.8NLNL
?71.3NL1.1NL
10NL1.4NL1.5
141.21.0NLNL
18NL1.92.1NL
191.1NL2.0NL
200.81.3NL1.0
23NLNLNL1.3
*Bold values denote medial lift-off, and NL denotes no condylar lift-off.
Anchor for JumpAnchor for JumpTABLE II:  Maximum Lift-Off Amounts (mm) in the First and Second Trials for the Five Subjects with Maximum Lift-Off*
SubjectTrial 1Trial 2
?11.51.5
?52.32.2
101.51.8
182.11.6
192.01.6
*Bold values denote medial lift-off.
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
12/22/2011
Maine - Central Maine Medical Center