Dynamic in vitro measurement of patellar movement after total knee arthroplasty: an in vitro study

BACKGROUND: Changing the kinematic behaviour of patellar movement could be one of the reasons for anterior knee pain after implantation of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of the current study was to measure the potential influence on patellar kinematics of patellar resurfacing during TKA. METHODS: Patellar movement before and after TKA with and without patellar resurfacing was measured under dynamic conditions in an in vitro cadaver simulation. Physiologic Musculus quadriceps forces were applied to five physiologic human knee specimens undergoing simulated isokinetic extension motions, patellar movement was measured using an ultrasonic measurement system. Thereafter, the Interax(® )I.S.A.-prosthesis system was implanted without and with resurfacing the patella, and patellar movement was again measured. RESULTS: The physiologic patella center moved on a semilunar path up to 6.4 mm (SD 6.4 mm) medially during extension. After TKA, the unresurfaced patella showed significantly less medial translation (p = 0.04) than the resurfaced patella. Subsequent resurfacing of the patella then resulted in a return to mediolateral positioning of the patella similar to the physiological case, whereas the resurfaced patella tilted up to twice as much as physiologic. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that resurfacing of the patella during TKA can result in a restoration of the physiologic mediolateral shift of the patellofemoral joint while angulation of the patella remains unphysiologic

Less Anterior Knee Pain with a Mobile-bearing Prosthesis Compared with a Fixed-bearing Prosthesis

Anterior knee pain is one of the major short-term complaints after TKA. Since the introduction of the mobile-bearing TKA, numerous studies have attempted to confirm the theoretical advantages of a mobile-bearing TKA over a fixed-bearing TKA but most show little or no actual benefits. The concept of self-alignment for the mobile bearing suggests the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing TKA would provide a lower incidence of anterior knee pain compared with a fixed-bearing TKA. We therefore asked whether the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee would in fact reduce anterior knee pain. We randomized 103 patients scheduled for cemented three-component TKA for osteoarthrosis in a prospective, double-blind clinical trial. With a 1-year followup, more patients experienced persistent anterior knee pain in the posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing group (10 of 53, 18.9%) than in the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing group (two of 47, 4.3%). No differences were observed for range of motion, visual analog scale for pain, Oxford 12-item questionnaire, SF-36, or the American Knee Society score. The posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee therefore seems to provide a short-term advantage compared with the posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing knee

Minimally invasive computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty, following the concept of femur first and combined anteversion: design of a blinded randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Impingement can be a serious complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and is one of the major causes of postoperative pain, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and implant breakage. Minimally invasive THA and computer-navigated surgery were introduced several years ago. We have developed a novel, computer-assisted operation method for THA following the concept of "femur first"/"combined anteversion", which incorporates various aspects of performing a functional optimization of the cup position, and comprehensively addresses range of motion (ROM) as well as cup containment and alignment parameters. Hence, the purpose of this study is to assess whether the artificial joint's ROM can be improved by this computer-assisted operation method. Second, the clinical and radiological outcome will be evaluated.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A registered patient- and observer-blinded randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Patients between the ages of 50 and 75 admitted for primary unilateral THA will be included. Patients will be randomly allocated to either receive minimally invasive computer-navigated "femur first" THA or the conventional minimally invasive THA procedure. Self-reported functional status and health-related quality of life (questionnaires) will be assessed both preoperatively and postoperatively. Perioperative complications will be registered. Radiographic evaluation will take place up to 6 weeks postoperatively with a computed tomography (CT) scan. Component position will be evaluated by an independent external institute on a 3D reconstruction of the femur/pelvis using image-processing software. Postoperative ROM will be calculated by an algorithm which automatically determines bony and prosthetic impingements.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>In the past, computer navigation has improved the accuracy of component positioning. So far, there are only few objective data quantifying the risks and benefits of computer navigated THA. Therefore, this study has been designed to compare minimally invasive computer-navigated "femur first" THA with a conventional technique for minimally invasive THA. The results of this trial will be presented as soon as they become available.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>DRKS00000739</p

The controversy of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: Ibisne in medio tutissimus?

Early arthroplasty designs were associated with a high level of anterior knee pain as they failed to cater for the patello-femoral joint. Patellar resurfacing was heralded as the saviour safeguarding patient satisfaction and success but opinion on its necessity has since deeply divided the scientific community and has become synonymous to topics of religion or politics. Opponents of resurfacing contend that the native patella provides better patellar tracking, improved clinical function, and avoids implant-related complications, whilst proponents argue that patients have less pain, are overall more satisfied, and avert the need for secondary resurfacing. The question remains whether complications associated with patellar resurfacing including those arising from future component revision outweigh the somewhat increased incidence of anterior knee pain recorded in unresurfaced patients. The current scientific literature, which is often affected by methodological limitations and observer bias, remains confusing as it provides evidence in support of both sides of the argument, whilst blinded satisfaction studies comparing resurfaced and non-resurfaced knees generally reveal equivalent results. Even national arthroplasty register data show wide variations in the proportion of patellar resurfacing between countries that cannot be explained by cultural differences alone. Advocates who always resurface or never resurface indiscriminately expose the patella to a random choice. Selective resurfacing offers a compromise by providing a decision algorithm based on a propensity for improved clinical success, whilst avoiding potential complications associated with unnecessary resurfacing. Evidence regarding the validity of selection criteria, however, is missing, and the decision when to resurface is often based on intuitive reasoning. Our lack of understanding why, irrespective of pre-operative symptoms and patellar resurfacing, some patients may suffer pain following TKA and others may not have so far stifled our efforts to make the strategy of selective resurfacing succeed. We should hence devote our efforts in defining predictive criteria and indicators that will enable us to reliably identify those individuals who might benefit from a resurfacing procedure. Level of evidence V

Theoretical framework and methodological development of common subjective health outcome measures in osteoarthritis: a critical review

Subjective measures involving clinician ratings or patient self-assessments have become recognised as an important tool for the assessment of health outcome. The value of a health outcome measure is usually assessed by a psychometric evaluation of its reliability, validity and responsiveness. However, psychometric testing involves an accumulation of evidence and has recognised limitations. It has been suggested that an evaluation of how well a measure has been developed would be a useful additional criteria in assessing the value of a measure. This paper explored the theoretical background and methodological development of subjective health status measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research. Fourteen subjective health outcome measures commonly used in osteoarthritis research were examined. Each measure was explored on the basis of their i) theoretical framework (was there a definition of what was being assessed and was it part of a theoretical model?) and ii) methodological development (what was the scaling strategy, how were the items generated and reduced, what was the response format and what was the scoring method?). Only the AIMS, SF-36 and WHOQOL defined what they were assessing (i.e. the construct of interest) and no measure assessed was part of a theoretical model. None of the clinician report measures appeared to have implemented a scaling procedure or described the rationale for the items selected or scoring system. Of the patient self-report measures, the AIMS, MPQ, OXFORD, SF-36, WHOQOL and WOMAC appeared to follow a standard psychometric scaling method. The DRP and EuroQol used alternative scaling methods. The review highlighted the general lack of theoretical framework for both clinician report and patient self-report measures. This review also drew attention to the wide variation in the methodological development of commonly used measures in OA. While, in general the patient self-report measures had good methodological development, the clinician report measures appeared less well developed. It would be of value if new measures defined the construct of interest and, that the construct, be part of theoretical model. By ensuring measures are both theoretically and empirically valid then improvements in subjective health outcome measures should be possible

Development of a new assessment tool for cervical myelopathy using hand-tracking sensor: Part 1: validity and reliability

Purpose To assess the reliability and validity of a hand motion sensor, Leap Motion Controller (LMC), in the 15-s hand grip-and-release test, as compared against human inspection of an external digital camera recording. Methods Fifty healthy participants were asked to fully grip-and-release their dominant hand as rapidly as possible for two trials with a 10-min rest in-between, while wearing a non-metal wrist splint. Each test lasted for 15 s, and a digital camera was used to film the anterolateral side of the hand on the first test. Three assessors counted the frequency of grip-and-release (G-R) cycles independently and in a blinded fashion. The average mean of the three was compared with that measured by LMC using the Bland–Altman method. Test–retest reliability was examined by comparing the two 15-s tests. Results The mean number of G-R cycles recorded was: 47.8 ± 6.4 (test 1, video observer); 47.7 ± 6.5 (test 1, LMC); and 50.2 ± 6.5 (test 2, LMC). Bland–Altman indicated good agreement, with a low bias (0.15 cycles) and narrow limits of agreement. The ICC showed high inter-rater agreement and the coefficient of repeatability for the number of cycles was ±5.393, with a mean bias of 3.63. Conclusions LMC appears to be valid and reliable in the 15-s grip-and-release test. This serves as a first step towards the development of an objective myelopathy assessment device and platform for the assessment of neuromotor hand function in general. Further assessment in a clinical setting and to gauge healthy benchmark values is warranted