In general TKA can be divided into two distinct groups: cruciate retaining and cruciate substituting. The cam and post of the latter system is in fact a mechanical substitution of the intricate posterior cruciate ligament. In our previous work we and many other investigators have focused on the movement of the femoral component relative to the tibial tray. Little information is available about the relative movement between the cam part of the femoral component and the post of the tibial insert. In this study we determine the distance and the changes in distance between the cam of the femoral component and the tibial post during extension, flexion at 90° and full flexion. The secondary purpose is to analyse possible differences between FBPS and MBPS TKA. 12 subjects' knees were imaged using fluoroscopy from extension over 90° to maximum kneeling flexion. The images were digitized. The 3-dimensional (3D) position and orientation of the implant components were determined using model-based shape-matching techniques, manual matching, and image-space optimization routines. The implant surface model was projected onto the geometry-corrected image, and its 3D pose was iteratively adjusted to match its silhouette with the silhouette of the subject's TKA components. The results of this shapematching process have standard errors of approximately 0.5° to 1.0° for rotations and 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm for translations in the sagittal plane. Joint kinematics were determined from the 3D pose of each TKA component using the 3-1-2 Cardan angle convention. This process resulted in a distance map of the femoral and tibial surfaces, from which the minimum separations were determined for the purpose of this study between cam and post (fig1.). Separation distances between the tibial polyethylene (PE) insert's post and the femoral prosthesis component have been calculated in three steps. First, the surface models of all three components as well as their position and orientation were extracted from the data files produced by the fluoroscopic kinematic analysis. Next, a set of 12 points were located on the post of each tibial insert (fig2.). Finally, for each point, the distance to the femoral component was quantified. For each step in this process, custom MATLAB(r) (The MathWorks(tm) Inc., Natick, MA, USA) programs were used. For each of the 12 points on the post, a line was constructed through the point and parallel to the outward-facing local surface normal of the post. The resulting set of lines was then intersected with the femoral component model. Intersection points where lines ran “out of” the femoral component, detected by a positive dot product of the femoral component surface normal with the post surface normal (used to define the line), were discarded. Finally, the distances between the 12 points on the post and the intersection points on each line were calculated. For each line, the smallest distance was retained as a measure of the separation between insert and femoral component. Where a line did not intersect the femoral component, the corresponding separation distance was set to infinity. In each position, distances are measured at 6 pairs of points. Two indices of asymmetry are analysed:
The absolute difference between both measurements within a pair. Perfect symmetry is present when this absolute difference equals zero. The proportion of pairs where one of both measurements equals infinity. Indeed, this situation refers to the presence of ‘extreme’ asymmetry. A linear model for repeated measures is used to analyse the absolute differences as a function of the between-subjects factor condition (mobile bearing or fixed bearing) and the within-subject factors position (4 levels) and pair (6 levels). More specifically, a direct likelihood approach is adopted using a compound symmetric covariance matrix. There is a significant difference in absolute difference between the fixed and mobile bearing condition (p=0.046). On average, the absolute difference is higher in the fixed bearing condition, 1.75 (95%CI: 1.39;2.11) vs 1.20 (95%CI:0.78;1.62). (fig2.).Methods
Results
