Mechanical Engineering - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemComparison of posterior-stabilized, cruciate-retaining, and medial-stabilized knee implant motion during gait.(Wiley, 2020-08)Accurate knowledge of knee joint motion is needed to evaluate the effects of implant design on functional performance and component wear. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to measure and compare 6-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) kinematics and femoral condylar motion of posterior-stabilized (PS), cruciate-retaining (CR), and medial-stabilized (MS) knee implant designs for one cycle of walking. A mobile biplane X-ray imaging system was used to accurately measure 6-DOF tibiofemoral motion as patients implanted with PS (n = 23), CR (n = 25), or MS (n = 26) knees walked over ground at their self-selected speeds. Knee flexion angle did not differ significantly between the three designs. Relative movements of the femoral and tibial components were generally similar for PS and CR with significant differences observed only for anterior tibial drawer. Knee kinematic profiles measured for MS were appreciably different: external rotation and abduction of the tibia were increased while peak-to-peak anterior drawer was significantly reduced for MS compared with PS and CR. Anterior-posterior drawer and medial-lateral shift of the tibia were strongly coupled to internal-external rotation for MS, as was anterior-posterior translation of the contact center in the lateral compartment. MS exhibited the least amount of paradoxical anterior translation of the femur relative to the tibia during knee flexion. The joint center of rotation in the transverse plane was located in the lateral compartment for PS and CR and in the medial compartment for MS. Substantial differences were evident in 6-DOF knee kinematics between the healthy knee and all three prosthetic designs. Overall, knee kinematic profiles observed for MS resemble those of the healthy joint more closely than PS and CR.
-
ItemA Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Medial Stabilised Total Knee Prosthesis to a Cruciate Retaining and Posterior Stabilised Design - A Report of the Clinical and Functional Outcomes Following Total Knee Replacement(Elsevier BV, 2020-06)Background The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the performance of 3 total knee joint replacement (TKJR) designs 6 months after the surgery. Methods Patients were recruited between March 2015 and March 2018. Patients with osteoarthritis consented for TKJR were randomly allocated to a medial stabilized (MS), cruciate retaining (CR), or posterior stabilized (PS) design. Primary outcome measures were self-reported improvement in pain and function 6 months after TKJR, using the Oxford Knee Score. Secondary outcome measures were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey, Knee Society Score 2011, Timed Up and Go test, and Six-Minute Walk Test. Twelve-month outcomes were also measured. Results Ninety participants enrolled, 83 were randomized: PS (n = 26), CR (n = 28), and MS (n = 29) designs. One case withdrew before surgery: planned use of non-study implant; 7 did not complete all outcome measures. No 6-month between-group difference was observed for the primary outcome. A 6-month difference was observed in Knee Society Score 2011 Satisfaction: MS favored over CR and PS. Clinically meaningful 12-month differences in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Pain, Function, and Global Subscales were observed: MS favored over CR. Twelve-month differences occurred in Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey mental well-being, favoring MS and PS over CR. Conclusion MS prosthesis can be expected to yield similar clinical and functional outcomes to PS and CR designs 6 months after TKJR, and patients were more satisfied with their outcome. Compared with CR, patients with MS prosthesis also reported superior pain, function, and quality-of-life outcomes at 12 months.