Abstract
Introduction
Surgeons performing a total knee replacement (TKR) have two techniques to assist them achieve proper bone resections and ligament tension – gap balancing (GB) and measured resection (MR). GB relies on balancing ligaments prior to bony resections, whereas bony resections are made based on anatomical landmarks in MR. Many studies have been done to compare the implant migration and kinematics between the two techniques, but the results have been varied. However, these studies have not been done on modern anatomically designed prostheses using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Anatomical designs attempt to mimic the normal knee joint structure to return more natural kinematics to the joint, with emphasis on eliminating both paradoxical anterior motion and reduced posterior femoral rollback. Given the major design differences between anatomical and non-anatomical prostheses, it is important to investigate whether one surgical technique may have advantages another. We hypothesize that there would be no difference between GB and MR techniques in implant migration, but that GB might provide better knee kinematics.
Methods
Patients were recruited to receive an anatomically designed prosthesis and randomized to groups where the GB or MR technique is used. For all patients in the study, RSA images were acquired at a 2 week baseline, as well as at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-operatively. These images were used to collect the maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial and femoral implant components relative to the bone using a model-based RSA software. A series of RSA images were also acquired at 3-months post-operatively at different knee flexion angles, ranging in 20° increments from 0° to 100°. Model-based RSA software was used to obtain the 3D positions and orientations of the femoral and tibial components, which were used to obtain the anterior-posterior (AP) contact locations for each condyle.
Results
Results from 47 patients (27 GB, 20 MR) were analyzed. No significant differences were present between the two surgical techniques for tibial component MTPM at 6 weeks (mean difference=0.02 mm, p=0.61), 3 months (mean difference=0.01 mm, p=0.92), and 6 months (mean difference=0.01 mm, p=0.93) post-operatively. No significant differences were present between the two surgical techniques for femoral component MTPM at 6 weeks (mean difference=0.12 mm, p=0.08), 3 months (mean difference=0.05 mm, p=0.54), and 6 months (mean difference=0.13 mm, p=0.05) post-operatively. On the medial condyle, no significant differences in AP contact location were found at all angles between 0° and 80° of flexion (p-values from 0.28 to 0.95). There was a significant difference medially between the AP contact location of the two surgical techniques at 100° of flexion (p=0.01), indicating more posterior rollback on the medial condyle in the GB technique. On the lateral condyle, no significant differences in AP contact location were found at all angles of flexion (p-values from 0.13 to 0.62). On the medial condyle of the GB group, the AP contact location moved posteriorly 5.83 mm from 0° to 20°, anteriorly 2.60 mm from 20° to 60°, and posteriorly 7.40 mm from 60° to 100°. On the medial condyle of the MR group, the AP contact location moved posteriorly 5.36 mm from 0° to 20°, anteriorly 2.87 mm from 20° to 60°, and posteriorly 3.65 mm from 60° to 100°. On the lateral condyle of the GB group, the AP contact location moved posteriorly 6.87 mm from 0° to 20°, 0.30 mm from 20° to 60°, and 3.61 mm from 60° to 100°. On the lateral condyle of the MR group, the AP contact location moved posteriorly 6.86 mm from 0° to 20°, anteriorly 0.02 mm from 20° to 60°, and posteriorly 3.56 mm from 60° to 100°.
Conclusions
The GB and MR techniques are very similar in terms of implant migration and overall kinematics when an anatomical prosthesis design is used for TKR. This study suggests that surgeon preference should be used when deciding which technique to use for implanting this anatomically designed knee replacement.
For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly.
