Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
)
-
6
-
4
-
2
0
2
4
30 50 70 90 110 130
T
R
(
)
90 N 130 N 180 N
M
F
T
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
30 50 70 90 11
0
130
FA ()
M
F
T
(
m
m
)
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
30 50 70 90 110 130
FA ()
M
F
T
(
m
m
)
L
F
T
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
30 50 70 90 110 130
FA ()
L
F
T
(
m
m
)
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
30 50 70 90 110 130
FA ()
L
F
T
(
m
m
)
FA ()
55
iv. Single vs. Double Squats
Introduction
This analysis compared single and double squat measurements from the knee kinematics
simulator. This was done to determine how data from the simulator may differ in the second
consecutive squat of a double squat motion.
Methods
Double squat trials were attempted on a case-by-case basis at the researchers discretion,
based on cadaver and machine integrity. All double squat trials that completed at least half
of the 2
nd
squat were chosen for analysis. 13 double squats from 5 specimens were usable for
this study. They had a variety of test conditions: pre- or post-total knee arthroplasty, different
hamstring attachments, and different target ankle loads. These trials were pooled to increase
sample sizes. Trial data were split into the 1
st
and 2
nd
squats, and absolute and relative differ-
ences between the 1
st
and 2
nd
squats were measured.
Results
Data analysis was limited to descent due to system limitations. Limited ascent data were
available for the 2
nd
squat due to instability of the system (g 18). Each specimen had unique
motions in time, and to reduce the variability, the data were normalized according to exion
angle (FA). Adduction (AlCor), tibial rotation (TR), lateral femoral translation (LFT), me-
dial femoral translation (MFT), quadriceps load (QL), and ankle load (AL) were analysed
versus FA. Mean absolute differences between the paired squats at each FA are summarized
in Figure 19. For kinematics, mean absolute differences between the 1
st
and 2
nd
squats from
30-120 FA were within 0.5 for AlCor and TR, and 0.5 mm for MFT and LFT (g 4). Vari-
ability in the kinematic differences decreased at deeper exion.
Discussion
The knee simulator system functioned well for the 1
st
squat but not for the 2
nd
, having prob-
lems during ascent. The actual AL followed the target AL within 20% across the entire 1
st
squat, for most trials (g 18), resulting in smooth load curves. Data were more stable at deep-
est exion. During the 2
nd
squat, errors were as much as 80% away from the target AL. This
instability likely comes from limitations of the knee rig system, or stretching of the xation
on the quadriceps tendon, leading to instability in the feedback loop. The current knee simu-
lator system did not discriminate between double and single squat kinematics. After normal-
izing according to FA, mean kinematic differences (TR, AlCor, MFT, LFT) between single
and double squats in descent were small from 30-120 exion (g 19). The kinematic dif-
ferences were not statistically signicant for this system, and the mean differences remained
close to zero within the ranges shown.
56
Chapter 2: Objectives and methodology
Fig 18 Ankle load vs. time plots for 1
st
and 2
nd
squats (13 trials superimposed). Loads are expressed as a ratio to
the target ankle load, which was either 90 N or 130 N.
Fig 19 Mean paired differences between the two squats for each trial (2
nd
squat minus 1
st
squat). n = 13 for 40-
100, n = 10 for 110, and n = 6 for 30 and 120. Graphs shown for tibial internal rotation (TR), adduction
(AlCor), medial femoral translation (MFT), lateral femoral translation (LFT), quadriceps load (QL), and
ankle load (AL).
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
20 40 60 80 100 120
Flexion ()
A
l
C
o
r
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
20 40 60 80 100 120
Flexion ()
T
R
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
)
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
20 40 60 80 100 120
Flexion ()
A
L
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
a
r
g
e
t
a
n
k
l
e
l
o
a
d
)
-4
-2
0
2
4
20 40 60 80 100 120
Flexion ()
Q
L
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
R
a
t
i
o
t
o
t
a
r
g
e
t
a
n
k
l
e
l
o
a
d
)
-2
-1
0
1
2
20 40 60 80 100 120
Flexion ()
M
F
T
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
-2
-1
0
1
2
20 40 60 80 100 120
Flexion ()
L
F
T
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
(
m
m
)
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
A
L
(
R
a
t
i
o
t
o
t
a
r
g
e
t
A
L
)
1
s t
squat AL
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
0 5 10 15 20
Time (s)
Q
L
(
R
a
t
i
o
t
o
t
a
r
g
e
t
A
L
)
2
nd
squat AL
57
v. Optical tracking system accuracy
Introduction
The purpose of this analysis was to determine how accurately the Vicon Motion Capture
System measures marker displacements in expected worst-case laboratory conditions.
Methods
Different Vicon system congurations were analysed for their accuracy in tracking the dis-
placements between two reective markers. The congurations varied the number of cameras
(4-8), layout of cameras (wide or narrow convergence angles), camera lens focal length (6-
12.5 mm) and target distance, target volume (~50-120 cm
3
), reective marker diameter (9.5
to 14 mm), and marker displacement magnitude (0-20 cm). The displacements measured by
the system were compared to the displacements measured by digital hand calipers accurate to
0.01 mm. Two markers were attached to the calipers (g 20), and the calipers were arbitrarily
moved by hand in the motion capture target volume with the markers spaced at a locked
distance. The cameras measured the distance over several seconds of video frames. Then the
markers were displaced by a known amount, as measured by the calipers, and motion cap-
ture system measured the new distances to nd the displacements. Trajectories were not l-
tered in order to give worst-case data. The differences, or errors, between the displacements
measured by the cameras and by the calipers were quantied over each video frame for the
unltered data. Then the worst-case raw data was reanalysed by rst ltering the trajectories
with a Woltring lter func-
tion (MSE = 10) supplied
with Vicon Nexus software,
as recommended by manu-
facturer instructions. The
motion data was analysed in
the same way as described
previously, and new error
values were calculated.
Results
The worst-case Vicon system conguration, with the largest variability in the measurement
errors, was not the conguration used for analysis of the knee kinematics simulator. Howev-
er, the worst-case conguration is presented here. It had an error of (mean SD) 0.06 0.60
mm (n = 7000 frames) without ltering the marker trajectories. When the trajectories were
ltered, the error was reduced, producing errors of 0.03 0.19 mm (n = 7000). Filtering the
data reduced the size and variability of error by approximately 50% and 70%, respectively.
Error curves were visibly smoother (g 21).
Fig 2 Digital hand calipers used as displacement reference, with reective
markers attached.
58
Chapter 2: Objectives and methodology
Discussion
In expected worst-case laboratory conditions tested, the Vicon system can measure marker
displacements within 0.60 mm for unltered trajectories and 0.19 mm for ltered trajec-
tories. This assumes that all marker trajectories can be reconstructed throughout the motion
capture trial, meaning markers are not completely blocked from view. Measurement errors
are expected to be smaller for slow movements and when there is minimal camera obstruc-
tion, such as in the camera conguration used for analyzing the knee kinematics simulator.
Use of a Woltring lter (MSE = 10) on raw trajectories was chosen for Vicon data analysis
of anatomic motions.
a b
Fig 21 Example displacement measurement error curves for the Vicon system before (a) and after (b) applying a
Woltring lter on raw marker data.
Measurement error, raw data
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time
E
r
r
o
r
(
m
m
)
Measurement error, filtered data
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time
E
r
r
o
r
(
m
m
)
59
REFERENCES
1. Hill PF, Vedi V, Williams A, Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MAR: Tibiofemoral movement 2: The loaded and
unloaded living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg 2000; 82-B:1196-1198
2. Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MAR. Tibiofemoral movement 1: the shapes and relative movements of the
femur and the tibia in the unloaded cadaver knee. J Bone Joint Surg. 2000:1189-1195
3. Johal P, Williams A, Wragg P, Hunt D, Gedroyc W. Tibio-femoral movement in the living knee. A study of
weight bearing and non-weight bearing knee kinematics using interventional MRI. J Biomech. 2005; 38:269-
276
4. Li G, Rudy T, Sakane M, Kanamori A, Ma C, Woo SL. The importance of quadriceps and hamstrings muscle
loading on knee kinematics and in-situ forces in the ACL. J Biomech 1999; 32:395-400
5. Lu TW, Tsai TY, Kuo MY, Hsu HC, Chen HL: In vivo three dimensional kinematics of the normal knee during
active extension under unloaded and loaded conditions using single-plane uoroscopy. Med Eng Phys. 2008;
doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy. 2008.03.001 in press
6. MacWilliams BA, Wilson DR, DesJardins JD, Romero J, Chao EY. Hamstrings cocontraction reduces inter-
nal rotation, anterior translation, and anterior cruciate ligament load in weight-bearing exion. J Orthop Res.
1999;17(6):817-822.
7. Most E, Axe J, Rubash H, Li G. Sensitivity of the knee joint kinematics calculation to selection of exion axes.
Journal of Biomech. 2004;37(11):1743-1748
8. Wilson DR, Feikes JD, Zavatsky AB, OConnor JJ. The components of passive knee movement are coupled to
exion angle. Journal of Biomech. 2000;33(4):465-473.
9. LaPrade RF, Engebretsen AH. Ly TV, et al: The anatomy of the medial part of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2007; 89:2000-2010.
10. LaPrade RF, Ly TV, Wentorf FA et al: The posterolateral attachments of the knee: a qualitative and quantitative
morphologic analysis of the bular collateral ligament, popliteus tendon, popliteobular ligament, and lateral
gastrocnemius tendon. Am. J. Sports Med. 2003; 31; 854-860.
11. Victor J and Hoste D: Image-Based Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Leads to Lower Variability in
Coronal Alignment. Clin Orthop. 2004; 428: 131-139.
12. Grood ES, Suntay WJ. A joint coordinate system for the clinical description of three-dimensional motions: ap-
plication to the knee. J Biomech Eng. 1983; 105:136-144.
13. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measure-
ment. Lancet. 1986;307-310.
60
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS OF THE EX VIVO EXPERIMENT
I. Intra- and inter-observer variability
J. Victor, D. Van Doninck, L. Labey, B. Innocenti, P.M. Parizel and J. Bel-
lemans. How precise can bony landmarks be determined on a CT scan of the
knee? The Knee. 2009; doi:10.1016/j.knee.2009.01.001
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the intra- and inter-observer variability of the regis-
tration of bony landmarks and alignment axes on a Computed Axial Tomography (CT) scan.
Six cadaver specimens were scanned. Three-dimensional surface models of the knee were
created. Three observers marked anatomic surface landmarks and alignment landmarks. The
intra- and inter-observer variability of the point and axis registration was performed. Mean
intra-observer precision ranks around 1 mm for all landmarks. The intra-class correlation
coefcient (ICC) for inter-observer variability ranked higher than 0.98 for all landmarks. The
highest recorded intra- and inter-observer variability was 1.3 mm and 3.5 mm respectively
and was observed for the lateral femoral epicondyle. The lowest variability in the determi-
nation of axes was found for the femoral mechanical axis (intra-observer 0.12 and inter-
observer 0.19) and for the tibial mechanical axis (respectively 0.15 and 0.28). In the hori-
zontal plane the lowest variability was observed for the posterior condylar line of the femur
(intra-observer 0.17 and inter-observer 0.78) and for the transverse axis (respectively 1.89
and 2.03) on the tibia. This study demonstrates low intra- and inter-observer variability in
the CT registration of landmarks that dene the coordinate system of the femur and the tibia.
In the femur, the horizontal plane projections of the posterior condylar line and the surgical
and anatomical transepicondylar axis can be determined precisely on a CT scan, using the
described methodology. In the tibia, the best result is obtained for the tibial transverse axis.
Introduction
The use of Computed Axial Tomography (CT scan) as a medical imaging tool has widespread
applications in the eld of knee surgery. It is routinely used in the diagnosis and treatment
of peri-articular fractures and patellofemoral pathology. In arthroplasty surgery, adoption of
this technology has been slower. The CT scan is nowadays considered the premium tool for
planning and evaluation of lower limb alignment
1
, and this can be attributed to the develop-
ment of technological applications like computer navigation and robotic surgery. These tech-
nological achievements put accurate medical imaging to the forefront of orthopedic surgery
and research of the knee
2-8
. In the eld of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the CT scan serves
different applications. Surgeons use a CT scan in a conventional way during the pre-operative
stage, to plan the position of the femoral component in the horizontal plane
9-11
. In the post-
operative stage, the use of a CT scan is a routine tool in the evaluation of failed TKA
12
, as
rotational malalignment of the femoral component has been determined as a main cause of
61
poor clinical outcome after TKA
12-21
. In image-based computer-assisted surgery, the CT scan
provides three-dimensional anatomic details
2-4, 7
. Novel techniques use CT-based patient-
specic templating to achieve the desired alignment in TKA without the use of conventional
alignment jigs. Finally, in vivo kinematic research of the native knee relies on CT
6
, or MRI
6,22
derived bone models. Those are used for model registration-based three-dimensional kine-
matic measurements, computed from sequential two-dimensional X-ray images.
In all of the above-mentioned clinical applications, surface-derived anatomical landmarks
provide the link between the CT scan data and surgically relevant references that can be
found by visualization or palpation during the operation. In addition, for the surgical naviga-
tion and patient-specic templating applications, the CT scan is used to dene the common
coordinate system, providing the surgeon the frontal, sagittal and horizontal plane of the
femur and the tibia. It is fair to question the ability to accurately identify the surface-derived
anatomical references and the reference points needed to provide the common coordinate
system that denes the three above-mentioned clinical planes. Relatively few publications
addressed this issue. Most studies concentrate on the relative position of different axes
15-17,
23-26
. Only few evaluate intra- or inter-observer variability
26-31
. To our knowledge, no study has
investigated a full set of surface-derived landmarks and alignment landmarks for inter- and
intra-observer variability.
In order to avoid semantic confusion, the following denitions are used. Accuracy is dened
as the closeness of a given measurement to the actual value for the variable considered.
Precision is dened in terms of the measurement error, as the deviation of a set of repeated
measurements from an arbitrary value
32
. As such, two observers can be very precise in their
measurements (small measurements errors) but very inaccurate because of a consistent posi-
tive or negative error. Applied to this study, previous work has shown that a calibrated CT
scan is a highly accurate tool.
The objectives of this study were two-fold:
1. To evaluate the intra- and inter-observer precision in locating reference points on a sur-
face reconstruction of the femur and the tibia, based on CT scans of fresh frozen ampu-
tated leg specimens.
2. To evaluate the intra- and inter-observer precision of the corresponding axes, relevant for
surgical use.
Materials and Methods
Six unpaired fresh frozen amputated legs (3 right, 3 left) were analysed, using a helical CT
scan (General Electric Lightspeed VCT, Milwaukee, WI, USA). The specimens were ob-
tained from 1 female and 5 male Caucasian subjects, aged between 78y and 87y old when
they deceased. The images were obtained at 120 kV and 450 mA, with a slice thickness of
1.25 mm and a pitch of 0.5 mm/rev. Raw data were processed using a bone lter. The CT
scans were analysed using Mimics 11.02 and its MedCAD module (Materialise, Haas-
rode, Belgium) to create the surface reconstruction and identify the bony landmarks. Three
observers participated in the study: one experienced orthopedic surgeon (JV), one medical
student (DVD) and one engineer (LL). The surgeon dened the set of relevant landmarks and
provided the two other observers with a denition and a brief teaching session. Afterwards,
62
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
the three observers analysed the CT scans independently. Two observers (DVD and LL)
performed all analyses three times with a minimum interval of one week for obtaining intra-
observer repeatability. The thresholding feature in Mimics was used to dene two masks (one
for the distal femur and one for the proximal tibia and bula). Lower and higher threshold
values were dened manually. The masks were then cropped to the peri-articular areas of the
bones and edited to separate the different bones. Finally, the masks were converted into 3D
models for identication of the anatomical landmarks.
Anatomical landmarks of the femur (g 1)
Femoral Hip Centre (FHC): centre of best-t sphere to the head of the femur
Femoral Knee Centre (FKC): most anterior point in the middle of the femoral notch on
a caudal to cranial view of the femur, aligning the hip centre with the roof of the femoral
notch.
Femoral Medial Condyle Centre (FMCC): centre of the best-t sphere to the medial con-
dyle
Femoral Lateral Condyle Centre (FLCC): centre of the best-t sphere to the lateral con-
dyle.
Femoral Medial Epicondyle (FME): most anterior and distal osseous prominence over the
medial aspect of the medial femoral condyle
33
.
Femoral Medial Sulcus (FMS): depression on the bony surface slightly proximal and
posterior to FME
33
.
Femoral Lateral Epicondyle (FLE): the most anterior and distal osseous prominence over
the lateral aspect of the lateral femoral condyle
35
.
Femoral Trochlea Proximal (FTP): deepest point of the trochlear groove on the 3D model
of the femur, aligned along the femoral mechanical axis (FMAx).
Femoral Medial Condyle Posterior (FMCP): the most posterior point of the medial con-
dyle on the 3D model of the femur, aligned along the FMAx.
Femoral Lateral Condyle Posterior (FLCP): the most posterior point of the lateral condyle
on the 3D model of the femur, aligned along the FMAx.
Fig 1 Three-dimensional model of the distal femur in frontal and lateral view. Abbreviations of the relevant sur-
face and alignment points are shown on the image. For the denitions, see text.
63
Anatomical landmarks of the tibia (g 2)
Tibial Ankle Centre (TAC): the centre of the best-t circle of the tibial plafond.
Tibial Knee Centre (TKC): the midpoint between the two tibial spines projected on the
bony surface, identied by viewing the 3D model of the tibia from cranial along the tibial
shaft axis.
Tibial Medial Condyle Centre (TMCC): the centre of the best-t circle around the edge of
the cortex of the medial tibial plateau
27
.
Tibial Lateral Condyle Centre (TLCC): the centre of the best-t circle around the edge of
the cortex of the lateral tibial plateau
27
.
Tibial Medial Condyle Posterior (TMCP): the most posterior point of the medial tibial
plateau, on a cranial view, aligned along the tibias shaft axis.
Tibial Lateral Condyle Posterior (TLCP): the most posterior point of the lateral tibial
plateau, on a cranial view, aligned along the tibial shaft axis.
Tibial Tubercle Anterior (TTA): the most anterior point of the tibial tuberosity, on a cra-
nial view, aligned along the tibial shaft axis.
Fig 2 Three-dimensional model of the proximal tibia in frontal and lateral view. Abbreviations of the relevant
surface and alignment points are shown on the image. For the denitions, see text.
Consequently, we obtained seven sets of coordinates (three analyses by two of the three
observers, one analysis by one observer) for the 17 landmarks in each of the six specimens.
Intra- and inter-observer variability was expressed as the distance between the mean position
of a landmark to the observed position of the landmark
34
.
For intra-observer precision, the mean positions of the landmarks
P (x, y, z)
and the distances
D
i of the observed position to that mean position were dened as follows (subscripts 1,2 and
3 refer to the different observations with 1 week interval):
64
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
The mean value and standard deviation of
D
i, was then calculated for each landmark as a
measure of the overall intra-observer variability for that landmark.
For inter-observer precision, the mean positions of the landmarks
( )
, , P x y z
were calculated
using the means of the coordinates found by each observer, giving the following formulas
(subscripts 1, 2 and 3 refer now to the respective observers):
Mean value and standard deviation of the three
D
i obtained from observers 1, 2 and 3 were
calculated for each landmark as a measure of the overall inter-observer variability for that
landmark.
To be able to discriminate between precisions along the relevant anatomical axes, a coor-
dinate frame was dened for the femur and the tibia, based on the mean positions of the
selected landmarks. For the femur, the femoral mechanical axis (FMAx) was dened as the
line joining the femoral knee centre and the femoral hip centre (FHC-FKC). The frontal
plane was dened as the plane that contains the FMAx and is parallel to the line joining the
medial and lateral centers of the femoral condyles. The horizontal axis was dened as the
perpendicular line to the FMAx in the frontal plane, containing the femoral knee centre. The
horizontal plane contains the horizontal axis and is perpendicular to the frontal plane. The
sagittal axis was dened as the line perpendicular to the FMAx and the horizontal axis and
passes through the knee centre.
For the tibia the tibial mechanical axis (TMAx) was dened as the line joining the centre of
the tibial plateau and the centre of the ankle (TKC-TAC). The frontal plane of the tibia was
dened as the plane containing the TMAx and parallel to line joining the medial and lateral
tibial condylar centre. The horizontal axis of the tibia was dened as the perpendicular line to
the TMAx in the frontal plane, passing through the centre of the tibial knee centre. The hori-
zontal plane of the tibia is perpendicular to the frontal plane and contains the tibial horizontal
axis. The sagittal axis of the tibia was dened as the line perpendicular to the TMAx and the
horizontal axis, passing through the tibial knee centre. All measured coordinates of all land-
marks were transformed into these coordinate frames to evaluate reproducibility along the
three Cartesian axes of the bones.
1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3
3
3 3
3
x x x
x
P P P y y y
P y
z z z
z
+ +
=
+ + + +
= =
+ +
=
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
i i i i i
D P P x x y y z z = = + +
1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3
1 2 3
3
3 3
3
x x x
x
P P P y y y
P y
z z z
z
+ +
=
+ + + +
= =
+ +
=
( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
i i i i i
D P P x x y y z z = = + +
65
In a nal step, the intra- and inter-observer variation of the femoral and tibial axes was
quantied, based on the mean deviation of their dening landmarks. It was assumed that the
errors in the coordinates of the landmarks were independent and random and that simple er-
ror propagation estimations could therefore be used. This was done for the mechanical axes
of femur and tibia (FMAx and TMAx) and for the axes with surgical relevance to rotational
alignment, with the following denitions.
Anatomical transepicondylar axis: FME-FLE.
Surgical transepicondylar axis: FMS-FLE.
Femoral posterior condylar line: FMCP-FLCP.
Femoral transverse axis: FMCC-FLCC.
Femoral trochlear antero-posterior axis: FKC-FTP.
Tibial posterior condylar line: TMCP-TLCP
Tibial transverse axis: TMCC-TLCC.
Tibial Tubercle axis: TKC-TTA.
For the measurement of intra- and inter-observer angular differences in the rotation axes of
femur and tibia, a geometrical projection on the horizontal plane of the femur and the tibia
was respectively carried out.
For each of the considered landmarks positions, we evaluated the intra-class correlation coef-
cient (ICC) for multiple measurements by different observers on different specimens
34
. By
denition, the ICC is evaluated according to the following formulation:
2
2
b
ICC
on different subjects,
and the variance between subjects is
2
b
)
Passive
Loaded, no
hamstrings
Loaded, both
hamstrings
Loaded, med.
hamstrings
Loaded, lat.
hamstrings
107
Fig 2 Replaced knee kinematics. AP translation (MFT = Black, LFT = white) and external tibial rotation versus
knee exion, for different muscle load conditions
108
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
C. EFFECT OF QUADRICEPS LOAD ON THE KNEE NEAR FULL
EXTENSION
Introduction
When testing cadavers in the knee kinematics simulator, running a dynamic squat near full
extension risks damaging both the specimen and the simulator. This is due to the inherent in-
stability of the system near full extension. At full extension, a change in quadriceps load does
not change the ankle load. The specimen also may experience destructive hyperextension if
the cadaver is forced in the wrong direction. Because of this, a subgroup of six specimens
was tested quasi-statically in the simulator near full extension. With the hip xed in height,
the effect of changing quadriceps load on knee kinematics was measured.
Methods
Specimens 7-12 underwent static trials in the knee rig at angles targeting 0-20 exion. Knee
kinematics were measured at these angles. Each cadaver was tested in different surgical con-
ditions. 43 static trials had both load and motion data and were usable for this study. Load and
motion data were synchronized in time by resampling to 1 Hz and matching peak quadriceps
loads with minimum exion angles. Eleven kinematics and soft-tissue isometry parameters
were calculated.
Linear regressions of each parameter versus quadriceps load were calculated for each static
trial (g. 1). The slopes S of the regressions were considered sensitivity values. Sensitivities
(S-values) were plotted for each parameter versus mean exion angle (g. 2) and then com-
pared using general linear model ANOVA for unbalanced sample sizes (Minitab 15) across
surgical condition, actual exion, and their interaction, with actual exion as a covariate.
Then all the sensitivities across different surgical conditions were pooled and their distribu-
tions plotted (g. 3). Further one-way ANOVA tests were performed comparing variance in
sensitivity across the knee rotations (Flexion angle FA, Tibial rotation TR, Coronal alignment
AlCor), translations (MFT, LFT), and isometry measurements. Signicance was set at p<
0.05, and paired signicance tests were performed using Tukeys method.
Results
ANOVA showed no signicant differences in parameter sensitivity to quadriceps load among
different exion angles or surgical conditions, except for LMPFL, which showed signicant
differences in mean sensitivities among native and replaced knees (-4.39 and -22.1, mm/kN,
respectively; p = 0.024). Because all other parameters showed no signicant relationships
with surgical condition and exion angle, the sensitivity values for each parameter were
aggregated and their distributions analysed (g. 3). Comparison of the three knee rotations
showed signicant differences in sensitivity among FA, TR, and AlCor (p = 0.004). FA was
signicantly more sensitive than TR by 30/kN. AlCor was largely insensitive to QL. Of all
the soft-tissue lengths, LPT was most sensitive to QL as expected. Femorotibial soft-tissues
showed the least variability in sensitivity, while patellar soft-tissues had the largest variabi-
lity.
109
Discussion
The static data largely did not show signicant differences in sensitivity between native and
replaced knee kinematics. However, it did show which parameters in general are more sen-
sitive to QL, such as LPT or FA. The regression equations for all the static data also were
aggregated to create a simple linear model for predicting average knee parameters for the six
cadavers, for native and replaced knees. The results of the model were plotted for FA, TR,
MFT, and LFT for native and replaced knees (g. 4). Note that the native knees show more
sensitivity to target FA, although not necessarily to QL.
Example FA vs. QL graph:
BCR2 native, 0 target flexion
y = -0.016220x - 2.906838
R
2
= 0.815383
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
QL (N)
F
A
(
)
Example sensitivity vs. static FA plot:
Sensitivity of FA to QL
-80
-40
0
40
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Static flexion angle
A
F
A
/
A
Q
L
(
/
k
N
)
Nativ
e Replace
d
Fig 1 Example graph of a knee kinematics param-
eter versus quadriceps load during one static
(or quasi-static) trial for specimen 2. Each data
point represents a 1 s time interval. The slope
of the linear regression approximates sensitiv-
ity to quadriceps load.
Fig 2 Example plot of sensitivities versus exion
angle. Each data point is the sensitivity value
of one static trial, representing how much a
parameter changes with respect to quadriceps
load. The x-axis coordinates of the points are
the midrange exion angles measured in the
static trials.
110
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
Fig 3 Boxplots of parameter sensitivities to quadriceps load (QL) during static loading, aggregated across all
trials for each parameter, minus outliers. Boxes show the interquartile range (IQR) of measurements, with
whiskers extending to the furthest points away from the boxes still within 1.5x the IQR. Circles indicate
means. Plots are grouped by knee rotations, translations, and soft-tissue isometry. Llatret=length lateral
retinaculum, LLCL= length lateral collateral ligament, LMPFL=length medial patellofemoral ligament,
LPT= length patellar tendon,LSMCLdist/prox=length distal/proximal medial collateral ligament
111
Fig 4 Average kinematics curves versus QL based on static data linear regressions.
Average FA vs. QL
-10
0
10
20
30
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
F
A
(
)
Average FA vs. QL
-10
0
10
20
30
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
F
A
(
)
Average TR vs. QL
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
T
R
(
)
Average TR vs. QL
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
T
R
(
)
Average MFT vs. QL
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
M
F
T
(
m
m
)
Average MFT vs. QL
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
M
F
T
(
m
m
)
Average LFT vs. QL
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
L
F
T
(
m
m
)
Average LFT vs. QL
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150 200
QL (N)
L
F
T
(
m
m
)
0
10
20
Target FA
Native
Replaced
P
a
s
s
i
v
e
A
c
t
i
v
e
,
N
o
h
a
m
s
t
r
i
n
g
s
112
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
D. CHANGES INDUCED BY JOINT REPLACEMENT
Introduction
This analysis reports the kinematics of the twelve cadaver knee specimens before and after
joint replacement during simulated loaded squat, where six received a bicruciate-stabilized
(BCS) prosthesis design, and the other six received a bicruciate-retaining (BCR) design.
Methods
The twelve specimens underwent tests in the knee kinematics simulator as described previ-
ously, where data from 0-30 were from static trials and data from 30-120 were dynamic tri-
als. Static data were obtained at exactly 0, 10, and 20 exion angles for each specimen by
linear interpolation of the existing data collected around these angles. Both hamstrings were
attached during tests. The resulting knee kinematics parameters were plotted versus exion
angle from 0-120. Within each group of BCR and BCS specimens, the kinematics pre- and
post-TKA were compared using general linear model ANOVA for unequal sample sizes, also
across exion angles. This ANOVA was performed because not all the specimens saw the
same exion ranges, due to uncertainty in cadaver xation before testing. Pair-wise compari-
sons of data were made with the Tukey method. An additional comparison was made between
the BCS data versus the passive, native data (see Chapter 3, Section V-A). Due to limitations
in sample sizes, the six native cadavers were not the same six that received the BCS knees.
However, this comparison was made to determine how well the BCS knees reproduced the
average passive kinematics of another unrelated set of native knees.
Results
Plots versus exion angle of anteroposterior femoral translations (MFT, LFT), external tibial
rotation (TR), and quadriceps load (QL) for the native and replaced knees are shown in Fig-
ures 1 and 2.
Native vs. BCR
Figure 1 shows kinematics plots for the BCR specimen group in native and replaced condi-
tions. ANOVA showed that on average the replaced knee TR was 3.4 more internally rotated
(p < 0.001) than the native knee, while the MFT was 3.0 mm more anterior (p < 0.001) than
in the native knee. QL was 48 N larger for the replaced knee (p = 0.037). LFT was not signi-
cantly different between the native and replaced knees. No pair-wise differences between na-
tive and replaced knees at individual exion angles were detected. A signicant relationship
between exion angle and LFT was found among native and replaced knees (p = 0.002) but
not for MFT. From 0-120 exion, the mean ranges of motion for TR, MFT, and LFT were,
respectively, 4.3, 5.0 mm, and 6.9 mm for the native knee; and 4.8, 4.3 mm, and 9.3 mm
for the BCR replaced knee.
113
Native vs. BCS
Figure 2 shows kinematics plots for the BCS specimen group in native and replaced condi-
tions. ANOVA showed that on average the replaced knee TR was 3.6 more internally rotated
(p < 0.001) than the native knee, while the MFT was 2.5 mm more anterior (p < 0.001) than
in the native knee. No signicant differences in QL or LFT were found between the native
and replaced knees. No pair-wise differences between native and replaced knees at individual
exion angles were detected. Both MFT and LFT were found to be related to exion angle,
among the native and replaced knees (p < 0.001). From 0-120 exion, the mean ranges of
motion for TR, MFT, and LFT were, respectively, 4.8, 6.9 mm, and 6.8 mm for the native
knee; and 9.7, 12.9 mm, and 16.3 mm for the BCS replaced knee, being signicantly higher
(p<0.001). The additional comparison between passive, native knee kinematics and active,
BCS-replaced knee kinematics are summarized in Figure 3. Active, replaced knee kinemat-
ics was on average 3.3 more internally rotated than the passive, native knee kinematics (p
< 0.001), and the medial femoral condyle was 2.4 mm more anterior (p = 0.011). The lateral
condyle translation in both cases followed approximately the same absolute values, and no
signicant differences were detected.
Discussion
Knees replaced with BCR produced loaded kinematics curves with shapes similar to the
native knees. However, they also both showed some differences in the absolute kinematics
values compared to the native knees, on the order of 3-4 more tibial internal rotation and 2-3
mm more anterior translation of the medial femoral condyle. Overall the BCR knee kinemat-
ics showed smaller deviations from the native knee kinematics than BCS knee kinematics.
The BCS knee forced more femoral rollback and posterior translation than the native knee,
in loaded conditions. The mechanical substitution with cam and post, of the intricate cruciate
ligament system, does not allow the knee to follow the changes induced by muscle loading
that are seen in the native knee.
Replaced knee kinematics in general was not more variable than native knee kinematics.
In the case of BCR tibial rotation, the kinematics was even less variable than in the native
knee.
Regarding quadriceps loading, the BCR knees showed a 48 N higher average load during the
squat than the native knees, whereas the BCS knees did not show any signicant difference.
This may be explained by the different quadriceps moment arms in the two implants. The
BCS knee showed more femoral rollback, which would lengthen the distance between the
tibial insertions of the quadriceps and the tibiofemoral contact points. Effectively this would
give the quadriceps a larger moment arm with which to pull the knee into extension. Then a
smaller quadriceps force would be needed in a BCS knee compared to the BCR knee, for the
same motions.
114
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
Fig 1 Native and BCR knee kinematics during loaded squat. AP translation, external tibial rotation, and quad-
riceps load versus knee exion during active exion (loaded squat) for native and BCR replaced knees. n =
6 specimens, although not all specimens saw the same exion ranges. Error bars are 1SD.
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
,
B
C
R
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
R
(
)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
N
a
t
i
v
e
Quadriceps Load
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
,
B
C
R
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
Q
L
(
k
N
)
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
Q
L
(
k
N
)
differences were detected.
.
N
a
t
i
v
e
Femoral AP Translation Tibial Ext. Rotation
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
R
(
)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
MFT
LFT
115
Fig 2 Native and BCS knee kinematics during loaded squat. AP translation, external tibial rotation, and quad-
riceps load versus knee exion during active exion (loaded squat) for native and BCS replaced knees. n =
6 specimens, although not all specimens saw the same exion ranges. Error bars are 1SD.
N
a
t
i
v
e
Femoral AP Translation Tibial Ext. Rotation
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
,
B
C
S
N
a
t
i
v
e
Quadriceps Load
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
,
B
C
S
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
R
(
)
-25
-15
-5
5
15
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-25
-15
-5
5
15
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
MFT
LFT
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
R
(
)
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
Q
L
(
k
N
)
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
Q
L
(
k
N
)
116
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
Fig 3 Passive native knee kinematics vs. Active (loaded squat) BCS-replaced knee kinematics. AP transla-
tion and external tibial rotation versus knee exion during passive exion for native knees and loaded
exion for BCS-replaced knees. Specimen groups had different cadavers, with n = 6 specimens for each
group. Error bars are 1SD.
N
a
t
i
v
e
,
P
a
s
s
i
v
e
Femoral AP Translation Tibial Ext. Rotation
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
,
B
C
S
,
L
o
a
d
e
d
S
q
u
a
t
-20
-10
0
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
R
(
)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
-20
-10
0
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
R
(
)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
-10 40 90 140
Flexion angle ()
T
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
MFT
LF
T
117
E. CASE STUDY: ONE SPECIMEN WITH BCR FOLLOWED BY BCS
REPLACEMENT
Introduction
One cadaver specimen was tested with two different knee replacement designs for a direct
comparison of kinematics. This is a longer and more complex procedure than analyzing just
one implant, and hence it was only practical for one specimen. The Bi-Cruciate-Stabilized
(BCS) knee and the Bi-Cruciate-Retaining (BCR) knee both were separately implanted into
the same specimen and tested in the knee simulator, using the appropriate surgical tools and
procedures. Although much of the articular geometry of the BCS and BCR designs is the
same, the kinematics of the two knees may differ because of their different ways of stabiliz-
ing the knee. The BCS relies on the post-cam mechanisms of the implant while the BCR
relies on the native anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments. This case study explored the
resulting kinematic differences.
Methods
One specimen was tested in a knee kinematics simulator as previously described, in native
condition. Then the knee was replaced with a BCR knee system and tested. After that the
knee was converted to a BCS knee and tested. The BCR surgical procedure conserved bone
and tissue that later was removed in the BCS procedure, and so in this order, with BCR
rst, testing the two implants did not cause problems.
In each of the three surgical conditions, the specimen performed ve types of motions de-
scribed previously: passive exion, and active exion with four different hamstring load
conditions. The dynamic active exion squats started away from full extension, targeting the
range 30-120, for reasons previously explained. Static data also were obtained from 0-30
only for the case with both hamstrings attached. The knee kinematics parameters under all
these conditions were calculated and plotted.
Results
Selected plots of parameters versus exion angle are shown in Figures 1-3. Figure 1 shows
external tibial rotation (TR) for passive exion and the four hamstring load conditions, for
native and replaced knees. Figure 2 shows the AP translations (MFT, LFT) for only the load-
ed exion condition with both hamstrings attached for the native knee, as this most closely
resembles the in vivo situation. Figure 3 shows the quadriceps load (QL) for the four ham-
string conditions, for native and replaced knees.
Discussion
In this single specimen the BCR knee more closely resembled the native knee kinematics, as
seen in the TR and AP translation data. This may be due to the preservation of the cruciate
ligaments, which may allow more physiologic motion. The BCS and BCR knees also repro-
duce the medial pivot and roll-back intended in their design, though more motion is seen
post-TKA than in the native knee.
118
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
In terms of quadriceps loading, in this case the BCS knee more closely resembled the load
situation in the native knee, while the BCR knee had a greater load than in the native knee.
This may be related to the kinematics, since the BCS knee exhibits more roll-back and theo-
retically has a greater moment arm for the quadriceps extension force. This can reduce the
quadriceps load necessary in a squat using a BCS knee.
Finally this is only one specimen, so no general conclusions can be made. The phenomena
seen here also may be partly due to non-implant factors. The BCS knee was required to be
tested last, which may bias the data if the specimen changed naturally over several hours of
testing. Furthermore each of the single trials could have been inuenced by unique conditions
in the knee simulator at the time of testing. However, the tests performed here are a proof-
of-concept that two different implants can be tested on the same cadaver. The surgical pro-
cedures and implants must be compatible, going from the most to the least bone-conserving
implant.
119
Fig 1 Tibial rotation vs. exion angle for the native, BCR, and BCS knees, for passive exion and the four active
exion conditions.
TR, Passive
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
T
i
b
i
a
l
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
)
TR, Both Hamstrings Attached
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
T
i
b
i
a
l
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
)
TR, No Hamstrings Attached
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
T
i
b
i
a
l
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
)
TR, Lat. Hamstrings Attached
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
T
i
b
i
a
l
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
)
TR, Med. Hamstrings Attached
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
T
i
b
i
a
l
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
)
Native
BCR
BCS
120
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
Fig 2 Medial and lateral femoral translations vs. exion angle for the native, BCR, and BCS knees, for
active exion with both hamstrings attached, which most closely resembles in vivo squats.
AP Translations, Native
-30
-20
-10
0
10
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
A
P
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
AP Translations, BCR
-30
-20
-10
0
10
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
A
P
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
AP Translations, BCS
-30
-20
-10
0
10
0 50 100 150
Flexion angle ()
A
P
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
(
m
m
)
MFT
LFT
121
Fig 3 Quadriceps load vs. exion angle for the native, BCR, and BCS knees, for the four active exion
conditions. Target ankle load = 130 N.
Native
BCR
BCS
122
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
VI. Ligament Isometry in the Native and in the Replaced Knee
A. THE NATIVE KNEE
J. Victor, P. Wong, E. Witvrouw, J. Vander Sloten, J. Bellemans. How
isometric are the medial patellofemoral, supercial medial collateral
and lateral collateral ligaments of the knee? Am J Sports Med. 2009 in
press DOI: 10.1177/0363546509337407
Introduction
The concept of ligament isometry is based on the assumption that ligament bers do not
change in length when the joint goes through an arc of motion. Ligament isometry is at
the heart of the model that describes normal knee motion and applies directly to surgical
repair of chronic or acute knee ligament injuries. This concept of isometry has been ex-
perimentally tested, mainly in passive conditions, in the absence of external load and muscle
action.
2,3,16,29,31,36,37
Ligament strains have been studied both directly and indirectly. Indirect
techniques measure the distance between the insertion sites of the ligament.
3,18,29,31,36,37
Dis-
tances have been measured with the help of pins,
3,36,37
dial callipers,
31
and electromagnetic
3-dimensional tracking sensor systems.
18,29
Direct techniques use in-site strain measurements
and require the implantation of external devices called strain gauges in the ligaments.
2,16,20,27
Both techniques have signicant limitations. The indirect technique, using insertion sites, re-
quires to a certain degree anatomic dissection and can only be applied in a static environment.
The direct strain measurement requires dissection as well, in addition to the insertion of a for-
eign body. This could potentially change the properties of the ligament. Dynamic measure-
ments are possible, but the adequate xation of the strain gauge with repetitive motion cycles
remains a practical concern. In this study, we propose a novel technique, using computed
axial tomography surface modeling in conjunction with optical tracking of the femur, tibia,
and patella, to examine the isometric properties of the supercial medial collateral (sMCL)
and the lateral collateral (LCL) ligament. In addition, we aimed to determine at which angle
in the exion arc of the knee the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) would be most taut
and thus have the greatest contribution to resisting patellar subluxation.
The aim of this study is 2-fold:
(1) to validate this novel technique by comparing our results with those of a recent quantita-
tive description of ligament insertion-site anatomy
18,19
; and (2) to determine the length of the
sMCL, LCL, and the MPFL in function of the knee exion angle, both during passive mo-
tion as well as in a dynamic setting including physiologic quadriceps and hamstring muscle
loads.
123
Materials and methods
Twelve cadaveric limbs from 8 male and 4 female donors were disarticulated at the level of
the hip and frozen at 20C. The donors were between 78 and 87 years of age when they died.
Passive optical reective markers were rigidly attached to the femur, tibia, and patella. Volu-
metric CT scans on a 64-row multidetector CT scanner (Lightspeed VCT, GE Healthcare,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin) were performed. All CT data were loaded in a 3-dimensional visual-
ization software system (Mimics 11.02 and its MedCAD module, Materialise, Haasrode, Bel-
gium) for further analysis. After a bone surface reconstruction mask was created, all relevant
surface landmarks were identied and the assumed centers of the ligament insertions on the
femur and the tibia were marked using the quantitative morphologic description by LaPrade
et al (g. 1a).
18,19
An error analysis was done on the rst 6 specimens to evaluate the reliability
of localizing these landmarks on a reconstructed CT scan. Three observers used bone surface
reconstructions of the scanned joints to identify the landmarks 3 times with a minimum inter-
val of 1 week (for intraobserver precision) and independently (for interobserver precision).
The mean error and the maximum error for each landmark were computed along the coronal,
sagittal, and horizontal axes, based on the recorded differences in position for each landmark
between repeated measurements and between observers. Methodologic analysis was carried
out as described by Bland and Altman.
4
a. b.
Fig 1 a. reconstructed surface model showing the medial side of the knee with markings on the medial epicon-
dyle, the supercial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) insertion on the femur, and the medial patellofemo-
ral ligament (MPFL) insertion on the femur and the patella.
b. reconstructed surface model showing the fan shape of the MPFL. The gray dot on the femur represents
the narrow femoral insertion of the MPFL, distal and anterior to the adductor tubercle. On the patella, the
blue dot is marked at 20% of the patellar length from the proximal pole and is found at the superomedial
corner of the patella. The red dot is the central insertion at 40% and the green dot is the caudal insertion of
the MPFL at 60% from the proximal pole of the patella.
The distance between the insertion points on the femur and tibia (sMCL), femur and patella
(MPFL), and femur and bula (LCL) was used to deduce the length of the ligament at any
given position in the exion arc of the knee joint, assuming the bers connect to the insertion
124
Chapter 3: Results of the ex vivo experiment
sites in a straight line. The femoral attachment of the MPFL was marked in a bony depres-
sion proximal/posterior to the medial epicondyle and anterior/distal to the adductor tubercle.
The femoral insertion of the sMCL was marked in a depression, just posterior/proximal to
the medial epicondyle (g. 1a). On the medial side of the patella, a bony depression with
longitudinal form was observed. As described by LaPrade et al,
18
the midpoint of the MPFL
insertion is located 41% of the length from the proximal tip of the patella along the total
patellar length (proximal to distal). We marked this point as the central anatomic insertion
of the MPFL. In addition, we marked 3 points along the broad and fan-shaped patellar inser-
tion of the MPFL,
1,18,28,31,32
at 20%, 40%, and 60% of the patellar length from the proximal
tip (g. 1b). The corresponding structures of the MPFL are referred to as the cranial, central,
and caudal parts of the MPFL. The tibial insertion of the sMCL could not be located directly
on the CT scan. The proximal attachment is primarily to soft tissues (anterior arm of the
semimembranosus tendon) and the distal attachment is broadly based and fans out over the
medial side of the tibia. For that reason, the sMCL was dissected at the end of the experiment
and the center of the proximal and distal attachment was marked with an aluminum pin. The
proximal and distal sMCL insertions were dened as the structures connecting the femoral
insertion to the proximal and distal tibial insertion, respectively.
18
The LCL attachment on the
femur was marked on the CT scan, slightly proximal and posterior to the lateral epicondyle.
The bular attachment was marked on the anterior margin of the bular head, distal to the
tip of the bular styloid process.
19
The centers of the optical reective markers were marked
by tting a sphere on the image and taking the coordinates of the centers of the spheres. Be-
fore the experiment, the specimens were thawed over 24 hours. The hip was amputated 32
cm cranial to the knee joint line, and the foot was amputated 28 cm caudal to the knee joint
line. The femur and tibia were rigidly xed with polymethylmethacrylate in containers. The
quadriceps tendon was dissected and looped around a metal bar, 7 cm proximal from its at-
tachment to the patella and securely xed with Ticron No. 5 sutures (Covidien, Manseld,
Massachusetts) and Mersilene tape (Ethicon, Johnson & Johnson, Somerville, New Jersey).
The biceps tendon was dissected and attached to a Ticron No. 5 suture with a whipstitch. In
a similar fashion, the semimembranosus and semitendinosus tendons were prepared. The
construct was mounted on a dynamic knee simulator system, based on the Oxford rig, which
was customized for this study. This electromechanical system was designed to simulate and
record the motions and loads in a knee joint during squatting.
Testing was performed at constant speed with an ankle load of 130 N, from full extension to
120. The ankle load was set at this value, as 130 N was the maximum load for consistent
testing of the specimens. Higher ankle loads required quadriceps loads that exceeded the
strength of the extensor mechanism and threatened integrity of the specimens. Five previ-
ously calibrated infrared cameras (Vicon Motion Systems, Los Angeles, California) recorded
the motion of the femur, tibia, and patella. As the optical reective markers were rigidly
attached to the femur and the tibia (the bula was considered a solid body with the tibia),
and the CT scan documented their spatial relation to the marked surface points, the relative
position of all points on the femur, tibia and patella could be computed. In a subset of 6
specimens, additional passive recordings were made, with the investigator cycling each knee
through a full range of motion 5 times. Finally, the specimens were scanned again to check
rigidity and unchanged position of the optical markers relative to a preset reference point on
the femur and the tibia. The aluminium markers were detected, and their coordinates were fed
into the Mimics 3-dimensional software for additional determination of the respective tibial
ligament attachments.
125
Statistical analysis was performed with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version
16.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago,IL). The data were assessed for normality using the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test. A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures design was conducted
to investigate the effects of load (passive vs. loaded) and knee exion angle (the different
knee exion angles) and their interactive effect on the ligament length. Post-hoc comparison
tests with Bonferroni adjustments were used to analyse signicant main effects or interac-
tions. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate the inuence of the knee
exion angle and the load on the length change of the patellar tendon. Statistical signicance
for all tests was accepted at the 5% level.
The intra and inter-observer variability was assessed using the methodology of Bland and
Altman
4
. For each of the considered landmarks positions, we evaluated the intra-class cor-
relation coefcient (ICC) for multiple measurements by different observers on different spec-
imens. By denition, the ICC is evaluated according to the following formulation: .
2
2
b
ICC
.
Where the total variance of measurements by different observers is
2
on different subjects,
and the variance between subjects is
2
b
-10.7 (range,
-14.4 to -3.5;
SD, 3.9)
7.3 (range, -2.6
to 16.0; SD,
5.2)
-12.7 (range,
-19.9 to -8.4;
SD, 3.6)
to 31.0;
SD, 7.2)
68.1% 8.2 (range,
-7.4 to 18.0;
SD, 5.4)
77.9%
Surgeon 1 8.2 (range,
2.7 to 18.9;
SD, 3.5)
63.6% 15.1 (range,
4.0 to 30.6;
SD, 6.6)
67.3% 8.1 (range,
-2.4 to 17.1;
SD, 5.1)
79.3%
Surgeon 2 11.0 (range,
2.5 to 23.4;
SD, 4.7)
73.1%
18.5 (range,
3.5 to 31.0;
SD, 7.4)
73.6%
9.0 (range,
-1.0 to 18.0;
SD, 5.5)
75.3%
Surgeon 3 7.2 (range,
1.0 to 13.0;
SD, 3.8)
54.4%
12.4 (range,
3.2
to 19.8;
SD, 7.0)
53.7%
6.0 (range,
-7.4 to 14.1;
SD, 6.3)
81.1%
Table 3 Average medial and lateral posterior femoral rollback (PFR) and relative axial rotation from full extension
to 30 exion and the average percentage of the movement from full extension to maximum exion it ac-
counts for in each TKA
*
Calculated only for those TKA with relative AR to maximum magnitude greater than 1 (94% of all
TKAs);
anterior movement;
120,
Max
*
0-30,
*
0-60,
0-90,
0-Max
0-60
*
0-90
*
Surgeon 1 from
Surgeon 3
0,
*
60,
90,
*
120,
Max
*
30,
*
60,
*
90,
*
Max
*
0, 30,
*
60,
*
90,
*
Max,
*
120
Surgeon 2 from
Surgeon 3
0,
*
60,
90,
*
120
0-30,
*
30-60
30,
*
60,
*
90,
*
Max
*
0-30,
0-60
*
30,
*
60,
*
90,
*
Max
*
0-90
*
Table 6 Differences (p < 0.05) in kinematic orientations and movements among surgeon groups
*
Variable appears in two rows, groups in third row without variable are similar (p > 0.05);
variable
appears in all three rows indicating difference (p < 0.05) across all groups; MAP = medial AP position;
MTRAN = medial AP movement between exion increments; LAP = lateral AP position; LTRAN =
lateral AP movement between exion increments; AR Angle = AR orientation; REL AR = relative AR
between exion increments; Max = maximum; AP = anteroposterior; AR = Axial Rotation.
147
Discussion
The goal of this study was to describe the in vivo kinematics after implantation of a TKA
based on a guided motion principle. Apart from describing the observed kinematic patterns,
the study aimed at studying intra- and intersurgeon differences to evaluate the inuence of a
guided motion prosthesis with dual post-cam constraints on the in vivo kinematics.
The study has some limitations. The methodology allows to detect and describe kinematic
differences between groups of patients treated by different surgeons but it does not relate
these differences to soft tissues conditions. As the operations were performed without the use
of a surgical navigation system, the medial, lateral and anteroposterior laxity at the end of
the procedure was eventually decided by the surgeons subjective assessment of joint stabil-
ity and could not be measured in an accurate and reproducible way. In analogy, uoroscopic
measurements of the weight bearing range of motion and kinematics before the operation
were not available for comparison with the post-operative results.
Numerous knee kinematic analyses of the normal knee have documented greater mean pos-
terior motion of the lateral condyle relative to the medial condyle, leading to a mean internal
rotation of the tibia, with progressive knee exion.
9,15,23,25,27,29
Komistek et al reported the
lateral condyle achieved signicantly more posterior motion than the medial condyle, 19.2
mm and 3.4 mm, respectively, with increasing knee exion during a deep knee bend.
25
They
also reported the occurrence of intersubject variability. From full extension to maximum
knee exion, the medial condyle translation ranged from +3 mm of anterior motion to -4.6
mm of posterior motion. In comparison, the lateral condyle movement was only posterior,
ranging from -5.8 to -24.7 mm. The average tibiofemoral rotation during exion was 16.8
(range, 2.1-27.1). Banks group used computed tomography-derived bone models for mod-
el registration and added MRI-derived articular surfaces for obtaining higher accuracy of the
contact areas. They observed the greatest femoral external rotation during the squat activity
but reported no posterior subluxation of either femoral condyle in maximum knee exion.
In comparing kneel, squat, and stairclimbing motions, they found knee kinematics to vary
signicantly by activity.
29
In the native knee, different methodologies seem to reveal different
kinematic patterns: the rotational patterns are variable and may be inuenced by the bear-
ing surface forces, further inuenced by foot position, body inertia, and muscular activity. A
guided motion prosthetic knee design carries the risk of imposing a motion pattern and ex-
cessively reducing this natural variability. Our data show subjects experienced PFR of their
lateral condyle (mean 23 mm) and a lesser amount of PFR of their medial condyle (mean
14 mm) during a loaded deep knee bend. The results reported for medial condyle PFR were
greater than previously reported for the normal knee
23,25,29
, leading to axial rotation patterns
similar, but less in magnitude, to that of the normal knee (10.8 for the patients in this study
versus 16.8 in the native knee). This greater medial PFR as compared to the normal knee
raises concerns as it can potentially overload the medial structures of the knee.
The variable analysed in this study with the most immediate impact on the patients func-
tion is the weightbearing ROM. The ROM reported in this study would be considered low
when compared with passive ROM. Dennis et al
11
reported weightbearing exion can be 20
less, on average, than passive exion with the same group of patients. In this study, the aver-
age weightbearing exion was 109 with a maximum exion of 150. Sixty-three subjects
(73.3%) achieved greater than 100 of weightbearing exion and 25 (29.1%) experienced
148
Chapter 4: Results of the in vivo experiment
greater than 120 weightbearing exion. So far, there is no clinical evidence relating certain
kinematic patterns to better outcomes like improved longevity or better wear performance.
Some authors have even suggested wear is not an issue in TKA as long as prosthetic designs
do not try to reproduce normality in kinematics.
14
In contrast, recent in vivo work comparing
laboratory data to retrieval specimen analysis supported the use of so called high exion
designs as they improve contact conditions and preserve contact area at high exion angles.
7
In addition, there is in vitro evidence that multidirectional sliding is detrimental to the poly-
ethylene, giving a theoretical advantage to guided motion.
5
Fregly and coworkers developed
another argument illustrating the close relation between kinematic behaviour and wear pat-
terns. They wrote a computer model to predict wear patterns based on kinematic in vivo
analysis and validated this model against a retrieval specimen.
17
The kinematic patterns seen in this TKA were consistent for subject-to-subject comparison,
reected by the low SDs in the data. Although the overall motion patterns were similar in
nature, we observed intrasurgeon differences in the in vivo kinematics: the relative axial
rotation between 0 and 90 exion was signicantly greater for the patients of Surgeon
2 compared to the two other surgeon groups (Table 4). This might be the result of a more
externally rotated orientation of the tibial component. Looking at antero-posterior condylar
position, the medial condyle is on average more posterior and the lateral condyle more an-
terior in the patients of Surgeon 3. This may be a phenomenon of the small sample size, but
the differences in midexion were statistically different between Surgeon 3 and the other
two surgeon groups. On the basis of the reported differences in kinematic patterns among
the surgeon groups, the null hypothesis that the implant would act as a constraint mechanical
device is refuted.
In conclusion, consistent kinematic patterns were found from patient to patient. Surgeon to
surgeon comparison revealed some dissimilarities, demonstrating the surgical technique and
soft tissue handling does play a role when using this particular implant. Although we did
not observe normal kinematics in all patients, all patients achieved femoral rollback during
exion and the axial rotation pattern was normal in pattern for 95% of the patients.
149
REFERENCES
1. Andriacchi TP. Functional analysis of pre and post-knee surgery: total knee arthroplasty and ACL reconstruc-
tion. J Biomech Eng. 1993;115:575-581.
2. Banks SA, Markovich GD, Hodge WA. In vivo kinematics of cruciate-retaining and -substituting knee arthro-
plasties. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:297-304.
3. Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moemans A. Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep
exion in total knee arthroplasty. Inuence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:50-53.
4. Bertin KC, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Hoff WA, Anderson DT, Langer T. In vivo determination of posterior
femoral rollback for subjects having a NexGen posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthro-
plasty. 2002;17:1040-1048.
5. Blunn GW, Walker PS, Joshi A, Hardinge K: The dominance of cyclic sliding in producing wear in total knee
replacements. Clin Orthop 273:253-260, 1991
6. Bull AM, Kessler O, Alam M, Amis AA. Changes in knee kinematics reect the articular geometry after arthro-
plasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2491-2499.
7. DLima DD, Steklov N, Fergly BJ, Banks SA, Colwell CW. In vivo contact stresses during activities of daily
living after knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2008; 1549-55
8. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE Jr, Ranawat CS, Scott RD, Thornhill TS, Lapp MA. In vivo antero-
posterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
1998;356:47-57.
9. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB. Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics
after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:37-57.
10. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Walker SA, Tucker A. A multicenter analysis of axial femorotibial
rotation after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:180-189.
11. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Scuderi GR, Zingde SM. Factors affecting exion after total knee arthroplasty. Clin
Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:53-60.
12. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Walker SA, Dennis KN. Range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: the
effect of implant design and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:748-752.
13. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Walker SA, Cheal EJ, Stiehl JB. Femoral condylar lift-off in vivo in total knee ar-
throplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:33-39.
14. Dorr LD: Contrary view: wear is not an issue. Clin Orthop 404:96-99, 2002
15. Draganich LF, Andriacchi TP, Andersson GB. Interaction between intrinsic knee mechanics and the knee exten-
sor mechanism. J Orthop Res. 1987;5:539-547.
16. Feng EL, Stulberg SD, Wixson RL. Progressive subluxation and polyethylene wear in total knee replacements
with at articular surfaces. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:60-71.
17. Fregly BJ, Sawyer WG, Harman MK, Banks SA. Computational wear prediction of a total knee replacement
from in vivo kinematics. J Biomech 2005. 38:305-314.
18. Hill PF, Vedi V, Williams A, Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MAR. Tibiofemoral movement 2: the loaded and
unloaded living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:1196-1198.
19. Hsieh HH, Walker PS. Stabilizing mechanisms of the loaded and unloaded knee joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
1976;58:87-93.
20. Insall JN, Hood RW, Flawn LB, Sullivan DJ. The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis. A ve to nine-
year follow-up of the rst one hundred consecutive replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65:619-628.
21. Insall JN, Scuderi GR, Komistek RD, Math K, Dennis DA, Anderson DT. Correlation between condylar lift-off
and femoral component alignment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;403:143-152.
22. Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MAR. Tibiofemoral movement 1: the shapes and relative movements of the
femur and tibia in the unloaded cadaver knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:1189-1195.
23. Johal P, Williams A, Wragg P, Hunt D, Gedroyc W. Tibio-femoral movement in the living knee. A study of
weight bearing and non-weight bearing knee kinematics using `interventional MRI. J Biomech. 2005;38:269-
276.
24. Komistek RD, Dennis DA. Fluoroscopic Analysis of Total Knee Replacement. Surgery of the Knee. Vol 2, 3
rd
Ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2001:1695.
25. Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M. In vivo uoroscopic analysis of the normal human knee. Clin Orthop
Relat Res. 2003;410:69-81.
26. Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Bertin KC, Rosenberg A, Kennedy W. In vivo determination of total knee arthro-
plasty kinematics: a multicenter analysis of an asymmetrical posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:41-50.
150
Chapter 4: Results of the in vivo experiment
27. Kurosawa H, Walker PS, Abe S, Garg A, Hunter T. Geometry and motion of the knee for implant and orthotic
design. J Biomech. 1985;18:487-499.
28. Lewis P, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Devane P. Posteromedial tibial polyethylene failure in total knee replace-
ments. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:11-17.
29. Lu TW, Tsai TY, Kuo MY, Hsu HC, Chen HL. In vivo three-dimensional kinematics of the normal knee dur-
ing active extension under unloaded and loaded conditions using single-plane uoroscopy. Med Eng Phys.
2008;30:1004-1012.
30. Mahfouz MR, Hoff WA, Komistek RD, Dennis DA. A robust method for registration of three-dimensional knee
implant models to two-dimensional uoroscopy images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22:1561-1574.
31. Markolf KL, Finerman GM, Amstutz HC. In vitro measurements of knee stability after bicondylar replacement.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1979;61:547-557.
32. Massin P, Gournay A. Optimization of the posterior condylar offset, tibial slope, and condylar roll-back in total
knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21:889-896
33. Noble PC, Gordon MJ, Weiss JM, Reddix RN, Conditt MA, Mathis KB. Does total knee replacement restore
normal knee function? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;431:157-165.
34. Stiehl JB, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Crane HS. In vivo determination of condylar lift-off and screw-home in a
mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:293-299.
35. Stiehl JB, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Keblish PA. In vivo kinematic analysis of a mobile bearing total knee
prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:60-66.
36. Stiehl JB, Komistek RD, Dennis DA. Detrimental kinematics of a at on at total condylar knee arthroplasty.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;365:139-148.
37. Stiehl JB, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Paxson RD, Hoff WA. Fluoroscopic analysis of kinematics after posterior-
cruciate-retaining knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995;77:884-889.
38. Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J. Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee
arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:646-655.
39. Victor J, Bellemans J. Physiologic kinematics as a concept for better exion in TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res.
2006;452:53-58.
151
CHAPTER 5:
GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
An important part of this work was dedicated to the development of an experimental model
for studying anatomy, mechanics and kinetics of the knee joint. This ex vivo model was de-
scribed in detail. Strengths of this experimental model include the robust technology allowing
double checks via alternative processing of the data. This was among others described in the
control of the stability of the reference frames with a second CT scan, the calculation of limb
alignment based on optical tracking data, as compared to implant position determined by CT
analysis, and the reliable repeatability of the tests. Also, as the three dimensional data remain
accessible, one can go back and add an additional landmark of interest for further kinematic
analysis. The triple bundle analysis of the MPFL was thus carried out in retrospect, after sug-
gestions and comments by the reviewers of the American Journal of Sports Medicine.
The model unfortunately also carries intrinsic weaknesses. Cadaver specimens are hard to
obtain and are often mechanically weakened due to chronic illness or old age. Working with
cadavers requires signicant surgical expertise and is time consuming. Many studies based
on cadaver specimens include only six specimens for that reason. Degradation of tissue qual-
ity over time occurs, potentially inducing bias in the sequence of tests performed. For that
reason we tested all specimens within 36 hours after thawing. Consequently, we were unable
to perform all tests in every specimen. Some tests were performed on subsets of six speci-
mens, as indicated in the different chapters. The model of motion, a loaded squat, is to be
defended for its simplicity and mechanical control. However, it is only a tiny reproduction of
the variety of motions, actions and loads of daily life activity. With the experience, gained in
this experiment, it seems possible to expand this experimental model to more complex mo-
tions, allowing to study ligaments and kinematics of the bones in a more natural and complex
model. Despite the described drawbacks we have been able to report interesting ndings
regarding functional anatomy and kinematics of the human knee joint and analyse the role of
a prosthetic implant.
Hypothesis testing
1. The ex vivo measured kinematic patterns of the cadaver specimens will correlate
with previously published data.
It might seem trivial trying to conrm existing knowledge on the biomechanics of the knee.
However, given the novelty of our methodological approach, combining real-time motion
recording with three-dimensional morphological analysis, validation of our experimental set-
up was needed.
In addition, after a detailed analysis of the literature and plotting of the published data in a
standard format (Chapter 3, V.A. g. 5), we were surprised to see an impressive variability.
These differences are larger than generally accepted and are amongst others caused by differ-
ences in handling and preparation of the specimens or positioning of the subjects. The human
152
Chapter 5: General discussion and conclusion
knee has an impressive potential for adapting its kinematics depending on those variables. In
that respect, it is interesting to compare the conditions imposed on the subjects when kine-
matics was measured in the active setting, as reported in the existing literature. Some sub-
jects had to perform wall sits against an angled board wall support, others were lying on the
side on a table, or sitting and performing open chain active knee extension. This explains the
wide variability in the reported results and raises the need for repeatable and well-described
conditions when studying knee kinematics. The constraints of our current technology might
prevent perfect standardization but a more systematic approach is the only logical way to
improve our understanding of active kinematics during activities of daily life. The traditional
model as it has been propagated since a long time is only one aspect of the kinematic behav-
iour of the human knee. It is quite interesting to note the quote by Hill et al
1
who described the
knee to ex as would a hinge, without axial rotation when the tibia was externally rotated.
This is exactly the phenomenon we encountered when the hamstrings were loaded.
Another explanation for the wide variability in reported results is related to the mathematical
description of the kinematics. The comprehensive description of kinematics is sometimes
regarded more difcult than its measurement,
2
so we decided to present the data in an intui-
tive format that applies to the surgical setting: relative rotation of the tibia to the femur, and
translation of the medial and lateral condyle in the horizontal plane. As the numerical output
at different levels in our ex vivo experiment did not present as an outlier in the previously
published data, and reacted in a logical and predictable way to variable conditions, we ac-
cepted the experimental framework as valid and thus conrmed the rst hypothesis.
We added new information on the role of the medial and lateral hamstrings and reported a
greater impact of the quadriceps and hamstrings on kinematics, than appears from the exist-
ing literature. This information could help explain the mechanism of noncontact anterior cru-
ciate ligament injury. Despite the recognized role of intrinsic variables like anatomical, hor-
monal, neuromuscular and genetic characteristics, mechanical interaction plays a major role
in the pathogenesis of ACL ruptures. Recent clinical research has suggested the quadriceps
could contract at the point of impact leading to an anterior vector on the proximal tibia, large
enough to rupture the ACL.
3
Our ex-vivo research supports this hypothesis and conrms the
role of the quadriceps as an ACL antagonist between 0 and 70 knee exion. Hamstrings
co-contraction has been shown to be an ACL protagonist, gaining importance with increas-
ing exion. The crucial role of agonist-antagonist relationship in the pathogenesis of ACL
ruptures was recently demonstrated by Boden et al,
4
relating a at foot position and less knee
exion at landing with the occurrence of ACL ruptures in a video analysis. Further clinical
research will be needed to clarify the in vivo role of hamstrings co-contraction, in terms of
timing, strength and body posture. Implementation of this muscular interaction in our experi-
mental model could help explain and quantify the forces involved.
2. The insertion sites of supercial medial collateral ligament, lateral collateral
ligament and medial patellofemoral ligament as anatomically described by La
Prade
5,6
will display a change in overall length of less then 10% during the loaded
squat.
The medial collateral ligament proved to be near isometric with a strain of less than 2%.
The second hypothesis can thus be accepted for the MCL. These data validate the quantita-
153
tive anatomical work by La Prade and have surgical consequences. Graft augmentation of
the chronic MCL injury with symptomatic medial laxity is feasible, provided the insertion
sites of the graft are carefully chosen, based on the above mentioned quantitative anatomic
descriptions.
The second hypothesis was refuted for the medial patellofemoral ligament, which proved
to be anisometric. The description of the different length changes of the cranial and caudal
MPFL bundle is new and previously unpublished information. It opens the door for double
bundle MPFL reconstruction with differential tensioning of the cranial (extension) and cau-
dal (30 exion) bundle. Further clinical studies will need to prove the superiority of this
technique. Potential advantages include the lessened risk of over-constraining the medial
patellofemoral compartment at certain angles in the motion arc. This is important, as chronic
patellofemoral instability often leads to medial patellar cartilage defects, caused by disloca-
tion. The thin line between providing sufcient stability to avoid recurrent dislocation and
increasing the pressure on the medial patellofemoral cartilage beyond the physiologic bound-
aries, requires indeed a more subtle surgical approach than our current techniques allow.
The lateral collateral ligament showed a different pattern between extension and 70 exion,
versus 70 exion to maximum exion. In the rst part of the motion cycle (0-70), the LCL
has less than 2% strain, and can thus be regarded isometric. Beyond 70 exion there is a
gradual trend of slackening of the LCL. The second hypothesis is accepted for the LCL in the
initial phase of the exion cycle only. This has consequences for the tensioned gap tech-
nique of balancing the exion gap and determining the rotation of the femoral component in
total knee arthroplasty. Failure to recognize the natural lateral laxity in exion could lead to
excessive external rotation of the femoral component and varus alignment in exion. As most
current systems use a tensioned gap technique with the patella dislocated, the unphysio-
logic higher tension in the dislocated patellar tendon probably counteracts to a certain extend
the physiologic laxity in the lateral compartment. With the advent of newer techniques, advo-
cating and allowing to perform gap tensioning with the patella in place, the effect of greater
physiologic lateral laxity poses an increased risk of axial plane malalignment.
3. Insertion of a knee prosthesis will alter the kinematics, mechanics and ligament
insertion site distances.
Our third hypothesis, relating to the changes, induced by a prosthesis was conrmed as the
replaced knee demonstrated a higher average internal rotation and more anterior position
of the medial condyle. However, the patterns of the curves and the ranges of rotation and
translation of the bicruciate retaining implant followed closely the native knee patterns. The
bicruciate substituting implant matched the native knee well in the passive setting, but the
posterior condylar translation in the loaded squat was higher than in the native knee. This
nding illustrates the dominance of the kinematic model that ruled when the BCS implant
was designed. The traditional model of axial rotation and asymmetric femoral condylar trans-
lation was indeed observed and generally agreed upon in the passive setting but little attention
was paid to the impact of external forces and muscular action on knee kinematics. As shown
in chapter 3 V.A., the impact of muscular action on knee kinematics is signicant, especially
on the lateral side. The described differences between the native and the replaced (BCS)
knee in the loaded setting also illustrates the intrinsic limitations of a cam-post mechanical
154
Chapter 5: General discussion and conclusion
interaction for stabilizing the joint and guiding kinematics. The cam-post interaction is a hard
mechanical driver that will impose a motion pattern as soon as both components engage. The
forces acting upon the joint will be transmitted through this interaction, and be transferred to
the bone-cement-prosthesis interface, potentially jeopardizing long-term xation.
Based upon our ndings, the manufacturer of the bicruciate implant has been recommended
to reduce the amount of induced posterior femoral translation in nding a compromise be-
tween the observed active and passive kinematics.
Signicant ligament length changes were detected after insertion of the knee prosthesis. Sur-
gical damage during exposure and making of the bone cuts, different kinematic patterns and
implant geometry account for the observed difference between the native and the replaced
knee. On the lateral side, the observed length change is relatively constant over the exion
arc with a range between 2 and 4 mm. On the medial side, the change occurs mainly in the
mid-exion range. Given the natural isometric nature and stiffness of the MCL, this change
is potentially relevant in the clinical setting. It probably relates to the mid-exion tightness
that is sometimes observed during surgery when using this particular implant. It is related to
the specic geometry of the medial femoral condyle of the implant. The manufacturer was
advised to slightly increase the radius of curvature of the medial condyle in mid-exion to
accommodate this lengthening of the MCL in the mid-exion range.
4. The changes induced by insertion of a prosthesis will be greater when the cruciate
ligaments are sacriced.
Based upon the differences between the kinematics of the cruciate retaining implant versus
the bicruciate substituting implant, the fourth hypothesis can be conrmed. As discussed un-
der hypothesis three, the mechanical substitution for the intricate three-dimensional cruciate
ligament complex can only partially fulll its delicate task of maintaining sufcient stability
without excessively constraining the knee joint. However, retaining both cruciate ligaments
in total knee surgery induces new challenges. A signicant number of patients suffer attrition
of the anterior or posterior cruciate ligament, caused by the biologic changes in the arthritic
process, mechanical impingement with protruding osteophytes or prior ligament trauma. For
them, a bicruciate retaining implant offers no solution. Also, the surgical exposure is signi-
cantly more difcult when both cruciate ligaments are retained and access to the posterior
part of the tibia is more difcult with potential insertion and xation issues for the tibial
component. Design changes (as compared to traditional cruciate sacricing implants) to the
tibial component are needed to retain both tibial cruciate ligament insertion sites and to al-
low insertion and xation of the component. Minor malalignment of the tibial component,
especially in terms of joint line position and posterior slope can lead to kinematic conicts
causing early loosening or ligament failure. For all these reasons, despite delivering good
functional results, bicruciate retaining implants have not always had a succesful survivorship
track record
7,8
. We think the new kinematic insights can give an impetus to improving these
historic designs and increasing accuracy of implantation.
155
5. The ex vivo measured kinematic patterns of the cadaver specimens after insertion
of prosthesis will correlate with in vivo measurements on patients having
undergone knee replacement.
The in vivo part of this work included a large cohort of patients, studied with uoroscopic
techniques. The observed average in vivo tibiofemoral rotation of the patients was 10.8
versus 9.7 in the ex vivo study, conrming the fth hypothesis. Some limitations in the
methodology have to be understood.
The loaded squat, as set-up in the laboratory is only a partial reproduction of the complex
motor task the patients had to perform. In addition, the presence of a raised platform and the
spatial limitations induced by a uoroscopy C-arm, prevented several patients to perform a
full squat.
The only possible comparison was the axial tibiofemoral rotation. Femoral translation could
not reliably be compared as the uoroscopic in vivo technique used tibiofemoral contact
points for describing femoral translation, where the ex vivo experiment used projection of
the centre of the condyles on the horizontal plane of the tibia. The latter technique is more
accurate but could not be performed in the uoroscopy study. Despite those limitations, the
observed similarity in axial rotation validates the methodology used and supports further use
of both the ex vivo experimental model and the in vivo uoroscopy for future research on
knee kinematics.
Where to go from here?
Dealing with degenerative arthritis is more than a technical issue. The higher activity level
and functional demands for a number of middle aged people on one side and the epidemic
proportions of obesity on the other side are provoking a steep increase in the number of pri-
mary knee interventions for degenerative arthritis.
9
In the environment of an ageing popula-
tion and longer life expectancy, this boost in primary interventions will also fuel the need for
more revision procedures.
10
This sets the stage for a difcult and paradoxical task. We need
to provide solutions that offer better functional outcomes, allowing higher activity levels and
at the same time, we have to increase longevity of the procedures.
Prevention
Better patient counseling for the prevention and treatment of obesity will certainly have a
positive effect on the need for surgical interventions. Degenerative arthritis, causing func-
tional incapacity and pain of sufcient impact to warrant knee arthroplasty is mainly a dis-
ease of people suffering from overweight.
Protective surgical measures as meniscal repair have been advocated since a long time. New-
er techniques as meniscal transplantation
11
or autologous cartilage implantation
12
are promis-
ing as conservative surgical techniques to preserve joint function and will have a growing
impact on early interventions.
156
Chapter 5: General discussion and conclusion
Surgical precision
An important part of the work presented was dedicated to alignment of the knee. The lit-
erature review on rotational alignment of the distal femur revealed an impressive number
of published papers on this subject. This reects in part the ruling disagreement in the use
of the optimal references for determining rotation of the femoral component during surgery.
We have tried to clarify the discussion on this subject in dening a kinematic reference line,
as published in the paper A common reference frame for rotational alignment of the distal
femur (chapter 3, II).
There is little discussion on the critical role of component alignment on kinematics, function-
al result and longevity of knee implants. If we want to improve results in terms of function
and durability, surgical precision will need to improve. The initial enthusiasm for computer
assisted surgical navigation has faded, despite initial positive reports on the post-operative
alignment in the coronal and sagittal plane, as demonstrated in prospective, randomized tri-
als.
13-16
This is in part due to practical concerns including prolonged operation times, tech-
nical difculties with optical tracker visibility and cost of the systems. But the inability to
consistently prove better outcomes in terms of post-operative axial alignment has certainly
played an equally important role in the absence of computer navigation in many operating
rooms. As we demonstrated in our work, the CT scan offers a superior insight in the mor-
phology of the distal femur and allows for a precise determination of the required reference
axes (How precise can bony landmarks be determined on a CT scan of the knee? chapter
3, I). In the past, integration between a pre-operative CT scan and intra-operative real-time
computer assisted surgery proved to be cumbersome, time consuming and difcult to achieve
unless reference frames were xed to the bone prior to the CT scan and the knee surgery.
Unfortunately, this approach required two sterile procedures under anesthesia, not encourag-
ing patients and surgeons in choosing this option. With the advent of patient matched cutting
blocks, this algorithm can be improved. Axial references axes can be accurately found on the
scan and desired rotational alignment can be determined prior to surgery. Cutting blocks are
made with rapid prototyping technology and subsequently offered for single use in surgery.
The main drawback of this pathway is ironically the insufcient CT scan visualization of
remaining cartilage in the joint, leading to an imperfect t of the patient matched cutting
block during surgery. MRI imaging overcomes this problem but is more time consuming,
expensive and less reliable for determining coronal and sagittal alignment based on imaging
of hip and ankle. A concerted effort from the orthopedic industry, the orthopedic surgeons
and health care administration will be needed to stimulate the development and increased use
of these technologies in an attempt to improve surgical precision, functional outcomes and
durability of knee replacements.
Staging the replacement procedure
As stated earlier, protective biological surgical procedures as meniscal transplants and au-
tologous cartilage implantations are carried out in an attempt to postpone the arthritic pro-
cess and avoid joint replacement procedures. The expectations are high but it is unclear at
what pace the biologic revolution will progress. In the mean time, many patients seek a
solution for incapacitating arthritis and need surgical interventions under the form of joint
157
replacement. The results of our work suggest an important role of the cruciate ligaments in
preserving normal-like knee kinematics. The technical hurdles to fully compensate for the
loss of this intricate proprioceptive, stabilizing and motion guiding ligament complex might
be to high for our current technical capabilities. The intriguing three-dimensional interaction
between the anterior and posterior cruciate ligament with its progressive bre recruitment, in
combination with the damping effect of visco-elastic articular cartilage, creates a mechani-
cal environment capable of absorbing impact loads in the presence of sufcient kinematic
freedom.
It seems acceptable to limit resurfacing of the joint to areas with exposed subchondral bone,
retaining the ligaments and the compartments with structurally intact cartilage. From the
standpoint of reproducing normal kinematic features with supposedly better post-operative
functional capabilities, this approach can be defended. The clinical experience with unicom-
partmental replacements supports this reasoning.
It remains questionable whether total knee arthroplasty is compatible with the preservation
of both cruciate ligaments. Potential kinematic conicts caused by changes in alignment and
joint line position have been mentioned above but the concept is too appealing not to explore
again in a well-controlled and supervised trial. There is good hope that the increased qual-
ity of the bearing surfaces, achieved in the last decade, in combination with more precise
surgical techniques, and better understanding of knee kinematics will allow to obtain results,
superior to those reported in the past.
17
Finally, in case of advance arthritis, substitution of the lost ligaments is needed to stabilize
the joint. Since the work of Insall and Burstein, this has traditionally been achieved with a
cam and post mechanical interaction. Despite good clinical results, kinematic abnormalities
and functional impairments have been reported. In addition, polyethylene wear on the post
causes increasing concerns. In the bicruciate prosthesis, used in our experiment, the form of
the cam and post has been adapted to substitute for anterior and posterior cruciate ligament
function. Recent research combining nite element analysis with uoroscopic analysis has
shown the cam-post mechanism to function in vivo as predicted,
18
but long term clinical
follow-up is not available yet. In our study, we have been able to demonstrate reasonable
in vivo kinematic patterns of the bicruciate stabilized implant with few outliers in terms of
axial rotation, but the average load bearing exion was 109, which averages the outcomes
in a multicenter summation analysis on posterior stabilized knee designs
19
(Chapter 4). It is
possible these outcomes suggest the limit has been reached with traditional cam and post
technology in total knee arthroplasty and new ways need to be explored. Copying nature has
often proven to be a good strategy in orthopedic treatments. As such, incorporating two ar-
ticial ligaments in a total knee implant might not be as extreme an idea as initially thought.
Economic considerations
It is beyond discussion that we face an era of shrinking resources in the health care environ-
ment. Knee arthroplasty will not escape this evolution. Efciency of the procedure, cost of
the implant, recovery time and hospital stay will continue to inuence surgical pathways. As
appears from the above, the procedure seems to evolve to a patient specic, technologically
supported operation. We will need to prove clinical superiority of this personalized high-tech
approach to justify the higher cost in comparison to the mass production of cheaper implants
158
and procedures that do not rely on these advanced technologies. Reduction of complications,
better functionality and durability will be the key words.
Conclusion
This works exposes the complexity of knee kinematics. The native knee shows an impressive
individual variability in its morphology. This anatomical variety is reected in the different
kinematic patterns observed. In addition, kinematics of the knee has been shown to change
dramatically under muscular loading. Future research will be directed towards the inuence
of external forces induced by body weight, velocity, muscle strength, foot and limb position.
Better kinematic understanding is needed to improve the outcomes of the treatment of knee
pathology, be it under the form of conservative measures, ligament and cartilage repair or
knee arthroplasty. The experimental model we developed is a potential new tool in the arma-
mentarium of technical aids that are needed for reaching these objectives.
159
REFERENCES
1. Hill PF, Vedi V, Williams A, Iwaki H, Pinskerova V, Freeman MAR: Tibiofemoral movement 2: The loaded and
unloaded living knee studied by MRI. J Bone Joint Surg 2000; 82-B:1196-1198.
2. Bull, AM, Amis, AA. 1998. Knee joint motion: description and measurement. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 212:
357-372.
3. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes: part 1, mechanisms and
risk factors. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34:299-311.
4. B.P. Boden, J.S. Torg, S.B. Knowles, T.E. Hewett. Video analysis of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Am J
Sports Med. 2009; 37:252-9.
5. LaPrade RF, Engebretsen AH. Ly TV, et al: The anatomy of the medial part of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2007; 89:2000-2010.
6. LaPrade RF, Ly TV, Wentorf FA et al: The posterolateral attachments of the knee: a qualitative and quantitative
morphologic analysis of the bular collateral ligament, popliteus tendon, popliteobular ligament, and lateral
gastrocnemius tendon. Am. J. Sports Med. 2003; 31; 854-860.
7. Cloutier JM, Sabouret P, Deghrar A. Total knee arthroplasty with retention of both cruciate ligaments: a nine to
eleven-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:697702.
8. Banks SA, Fregly BJ, Boniforti F, Reinschmidt C, Romagnoli S. Comparing in vivo kinematics of unicondylar
and bi-unicondylar knee replacements. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005;13: 551556
9. Lavernia C, Lee DJ, Hernandez VH. The increasing nancial burden of knee revision surgery in the United
States. Clin Orthop 2006 446:221-226.
10. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Zhao K, et al. The future burden of hip and knee revisions: U.S. projections from 2005 to
2030. Proceedings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 73rd Annual Meeting Chicago 2006 SE-
53 p597.
11. P.C.M. Verdonk, A. Demurie, K.F. Almqvist, E.M. Veys, G. Verbruggen, R. Verdonk. Transplantation of viable
meniscal allograft. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2006; 88:109-118.
12. Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J et al: Characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better structural repair
when treating symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee in a randomized controlled trial versus microfracture.
Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36:235-46
13. Sparmann M, Wolke B, Czupalla H, Banzer D, Zink A. Positioning of total knee arthroplasty with and without
navigation support. J Bone Joint Surg 2003; 85-B:830-5.
14. Victor J and Hoste D. Computer assisted surgery: Image-Based Computer-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty
Leads to Lower Variability in Coronal Alignment. Clin Orthop 2004 Nov;428:131-139
15. Chauhan SK, Scott RG, Breidahl W, Beaver RJ. Computer assisted knee arthroplasty versus a conventional jig-
based technique. J Bone Joint Surg 2004;86-B:372-7.
16. Bthis H, Perlick L, Tingart M, Lring C, Zurakowski D, Grifka J. Alignment in total knee arthroplasty. A com-
parison of computer assisted surgery with the conventional technique. J Bone Joint Surg 2004;86-B:982-87.
17. Robertson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L: The Swedish Arthroplasty Register 1975-1997. An update with
special emphasis on 41.223 knees operated on in 1988-1997. Acta Orthop Scand 2001; 72(5): 503-513.
18. F. Catani, B. Innocenti, C. Belvedere, L. Labey, A. Ensini, A Leardini. The Mark Coventry Award Articular:
Contact estimation in TKA using in vivo kinematics and nite element analysis. Clin Orthop. 2009 in press.
DOI 10,1007/s11999-0941-4.
19. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB. Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics
after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:37-57.
160
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A scientic man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone, schreef
Charles Darwin vanop zijn schip The Beagle naar het thuisfront. Het uitvoeren en neer-
schrijven van een wetenschappelijke opdracht vereist een behoorlijke dosis afzondering, re-
ectie en onthechting. Toch moet je tevens onvoorwaardelijk beroep kunnen doen op vol-
doende mensen die je project steunen en genegen zijn. Ik ben dan ook oprechte dank ver-
schuldigd aan nieder die mij in de voorbije jaren heeft geholpen deze doctoraatsthesis tot
een goed einde te brengen.
Samen met Prof. Bellemans heb ik een belangrijk deel van mijn klinische en wetenschap-
pelijke orthopedische loopbaan kunnen volmaken. Het was voor mij dan ook een grote steun
Johan aan mijn zijde te hebben bij de voorbereiding, planning en uitvoering van deze the-
sis. Zijn scherpe geest en aanstekelijke dynamiek hebben mij geholpen de practische moei-
lijkheden te overwinnen en steeds te blijven denken aan de volgende stap die we moesten
nemen. Zijn bijdrage in de talrijke publicaties valt dan ook moeilijk te overschatten. Ik dank
tevens de Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Ik heb hier een uitstekende opleiding genoten en
apprecieer de kans deze doctoraatsthesis te kunnen voorleggen. De impliciete steun van Prof
Broos en Prof Luyten was voor mij belangrijk en heeft me gesterkt om vol te houden en alle
horden te nemen.
Prof. Somville wens ik te danken voor de aangename samenwerking met zijn team aan de
Universiteit Antwerpen. Zonder de steun van het departement anatomie van Prof. Bortier had
ik de experimenten niet kunnen uitvoeren. Ik bedank Prof. Van Glabbeek, die zijn ervaring
opgedaan in het labo van de Mayo Clinic, ten dienste heeft gesteld. Francis heeft me erg
waardevolle praktische raad gegeven en me daadwerkelijk bijgestaan bij de eerste experi-
menten. Prof. Parizel hielp met de medische beeldvorming en stelde de CT scan ter beschik-
king. Het ligt niet voor de hand anatomische specimens in te scannen tussen de erg drukke
klinische activiteiten door. Michel Geldof heeft zich als dienst-verantwoordelijke zeer in-
schikkelijk opgesteld, waarvoor dank.
De technische omkadering van de laboratoriumexperimenten was indrukwekkend. Het exper-
imenteel model hebben we in nauwe samenwerking met de ingenieurs kunnen ontwikkelen.
Ik dank Prof. Vander Sloten voor zijn overzicht en begeleiding. Luc Labey was mijn baken
voor alle technische vragen. Zijn brede kennis van de biomechanica en handige inventiviteit
hebben veel bijgedragen tot de resultaten die we hebben geboekt. Dank zij Luc kon ik mijn
kennis van de fysica en de wiskunde aanscherpen, en ik denk dat hij nu de basisprincipes van
de chirurgie onder de knie heeft, want hij was mijn naaste assistent bij het prepareren van de
specimens. Pius Wong dank ik voor zijn heldere, analytische aanpak. Pius is betrouwbaar,
scherpzinnig en nauwkeurig. Hij was een onmisbare pion voor de dataverwerking en analyse
van de resultaten. Bernardo Innocenti stelde zich beschikbaar om bijstand te leveren waar
nodig. Ik heb zijn bereidwillig engagement zeer geapprecieerd.
Philippe Danckaert zorgde voor de chirurgische navigatietechnologie en was bij alle experi-
menten een onmisbare schakel. Philippe produceerde ook de erg gewaardeerde wetenschap-
pelijke video voor de scientic exhibit op de meeting van de American Academy of Orthope-
dic Surgeons in 2009. Hij stond steeds klaar om eender welk technisch of practisch probleem
aan te pakken met raad en daad. Ik dank hem dan ook van harte voor zijn loyale houding en
volgehouden steun.
161
Veel collegas hebben mij in de afgelopen jaren gevraagd hoe ik een doctoraatsthesis kon
combineren met de klinische praktijk. Dit werk is mede mogelijk gemaakt door mijn col-
legas staeden van de dienst orthopedie in het St-Lucas ziekenhuis te Brugge. Zij hebben
mij de mogelijkheid gegeven deze thesis te maken. In het bijzonder dank ik Dr Geert Van
Damme, die in mijn afwezigheid op donderdag de drukke raadplegingen verzorgde en de
geopereerde patinten opvolgde.
Voor mijn gezin was deze onderneming geen makkelijke periode. Gedurende meerdere jaren
heb ik thuis de meeste tijd doorgebracht in mijn bureel en veel vrije tijd is in dit project opge-
gaan. Dit was alleen mogelijk omdat Marleen beschikbaar was om onze kinderen Arnout,
Klaas en Emilie op te vangen en te begeleiden in hun tienerjaren. Het is dan ook aan haar te
danken dat zij met een goede basis op weg kunnen in het leven. Ten slotte is dit het mooiste
en belangrijkste project om tot een goed eind te brengen, Charles Darwin ten spijt.
162
Appendix 1. List of abbreviations
2D Two-Dimensional
3D Three-Dimensional
ACL Anterior Cruciate ligament
AL Ankle Load
AlCor Coronal Alignment
AP Antero-Posterior
BCR Bi-Cruciate Retaining prosthesis
BCS Bi-Cruciate Substituting prosthesis
CR Coefcient of repeatability
CT Computer Axial Tomography
FA Flexion Angle
FHC Femoral Hip Centre
FKC Femoral Knee Centre
FLCC Femoral Lateral Condyle Centre
FLE Femoral Lateral Epicondyle
FMAx Femoral Mechanical Axis
FMCC Femoral Medial Condyle Centre
FME Femoral Medial Epicondyle
FMS Femoral Medial Sulcus
FTAx Femoral Transverse Axis
ICC Intra-Class Correlation Coefcient
Lat Lateral
LCL Lateral Collateral Ligament
LFT Lateral Femoral Condyle Translation
Max Maximum
Med Medial
MFT Medial Femoral Condyle Translation
MPFL Medial Patellofemoral Ligament
MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging
MSE Mean Square Error
OA Osteo-Arthritis
PCL Posterior Condylar Line
PID Proportional Integral Derivative
QL Quadriceps Load
ROM Range of Motion
SD Standard Deviation
sMCL Supercial Medial Collateral Ligament
TAC Tibial Ankle Centre
TEA Trans-epicondylar axis
TKA Total Knee Arthroplasty
TKC Tibial Knee Centre
TLCC Tibial Lateral Condyle Centre
TMAx Tibial Mechanical Axis
TMCC Tibial Medial Condyle Centre
TR Tibial Rotation
TRAx Trochlear Anteroposterior Axis
TTA Tibial Tubercle Anterior
163
Appendix 2: Anatomic denitions
!
"#!$%!&'()%*!#+!,(%-#,%('"./%!012!
"#!$%!&'()%*!#+!,#3"-#,%('"./%!012!
"#!$%!4'5465'"%*! !
REFERENCE ABBREVIATION DEFINITION
REFERENCE POINTS FEMUR !
0%+"(%!#7!"8%!8.,! 8.,!4"(! 0%+"(%!#7!$%3"!7."!3,8%(%!'(#6+*!7%&#('5!8%'*!
0%+"(%!#7!"8%!)+%%! )+%%!4"(! 0'(".5'9%!+%'(%3"!"#!'+"%(.#(!,#.+"!#7!7%&#('5!+#"48!
:'"%('5!%,.4#+*;5%! 5'"!%,.! <%%!(%7!:'=('*%!1><?!
?%*.'5!%,.4#+*;5%! &%*!%,.! <%%!(%7!:'=('*%!>@><!
1**64"#(!"6$%(45%! '**!"6$! <%%!(%7!:'=('*%!>@><!
A'3"(#4+%&.63!"6$%(45%! 9'3"!"6$! <%%!(%7!:'=('*%!>@><!
2(#485%'(!9(##/%!,(#B.&'5! "(#48!,(#B! ?#3"!,(#B.&'5!,#.+"!#7!"(#485%'(!9(##/%!
0%+"(%!&%*.'5!4#+*;5%! &%*!4#+*!4"(! 0%+"(%!#7!$%3"!7."!3,8%(%!'(#6+*!&%*.'5!4#+*;5%!
0%+"(%!5'"%('5!4#+*;5%! 5'"!4#+*!4"(! 0%+"(%!#7!$%3"!7."!3,8%(%!'(#6+*!5'"%('5!4#+*;5%!
REFERENCE POINTS TIBIA !
0%+"(%!#7!,5'"%'6! ".$!4"(! ?.*,#.+"!$%"C%%+!".$.'5!3,.+%3!,(#D%4"%*!#+!"8%!$#+%!
0%+"(%!#7!'+)5%! '+)5!4"(! 0%+"(%!#7!$%3"!7."!4.(45%!'(#6+*!".$.'5!,5'7#+*!#7!'+)5%E!
%B456*.+9!&%*.'5!&'55%#563!
?%*.'5!4#+*;5'(!4%+"(%! &44! 0%+"(%!#7!$%3"!7."!4.(45%!'(#6+*!"8%!%*9%!#7!"8%!4#("%B!#7!"8%!
&%*.'5!".$.'5!,5'"%'6!
:'"%('5!4#+*;5'(!4%+"(%! 544! 0%+"(%!#7!$%3"!7."!4.(45%!'(#6+*!"8%!%*9%!#7!"8%!4#("%B!#7!"8%!
5'"%('5!".$.'5!,5'"%'6!
2.$.'5!"6$%(45%! 2.$!"6$! 0%+"(%!#7!$%3"!7."!4.(45%!'(#6+*!"8%!".$.'5!"6$%(#3.";!
2.,!F.$65'! 2.,!7.$! ?#3"!,(#B.&'5!,#.+"!#7!7.$65'!
REFERENCE POINTS PATELLA !
1,%B!,'"%55'%! ,'"!',%B! "!*.3"'5!,#.+"!#7!',%B!,'"%55'%!
=(#B.&'5!4'(".5'9%!(.*9%! ,'"!,4(! "!,(#B.&'5!,#.+"!#7!4%+"('5!4'(".5'9%!(.*9%!#7!,'"%55'!
G.3"'5!4'(".5'9%!(.*9%! ,'"!*4(! "!*.3"'5!,#.+"!#7!4%+"('5!4'(".5'9%!(.*9%!#7!,'"%55'!
:'"%('5!,#.+"! ,'"!5'"! "!5'"%('5!,#.+"!#7!,'"%55'!
LIGAMENT INSERTIONS FEMUR !
<6,%(7.4.'5!&%*.'5!4#55'"%('5!
5.9'&%+"!
.+3!3?0:!F! HEI!&&!,(#B.&'5E!JEK!&&!,#3"%(.#(!"#!&%*!%,.!
?%*.'5!,'"%55#7%&#('5!5.9'&%+"! .+3!?=F:!F! LEM!&&!'+"%(.#(!'+*!HEK!*.3"'5!"#!'**!"6$!
:'"%('5!4#55'"%('5!5.9'&%+"! .+3!:0:!F! LEJ!&&!,(#B.&'5!'+*!HEL!&&!,#3"%(.#(!"#!5'"!%,.!
LIGAMENT INSERTIONS TIBIA !
<6,%(7.4.'5!&%*.'5!4#55'"%('5!
5.9'&%+"!,(#B.&'5!
.+3!3?0:!,(#B! N+!365463!#7!'+"%(.#(!'(&!#7!3%&.&%&$('+#363E!3'9.""'5!#+!
&.*5.+%!".$.'E!'56&.+6&!&'()%(!
<6,%(7.4.'5!&%*.'5!4#55'"%('5!
5.9'&%+"!*.3"'5!
.+3!3?0:!*.3"! G.3"'5!.+3%(".#+!#+!".$.'E!'56&.+6&!&'()%(!
LIGAMENT INSERTIONS FIBULA
:'"%('5!4#55'"%('5!5.9'&%+"! .+3!:0:!F.$! KEI!&&!,#3"%(.#(!"#!'+"%(.#(!&'(9.+!#7!7.$65'(!8%'*!'+*!IKEJ!
*.3"'5!7(#&!".,!#7!7.$65'(!3";5#.*!,(#4%33!
164
?%*.'5!,'"%55#7%&#('5!5.9'&%+"! .+3!?=F:!=! JLEJO!#7!"8%!"#"'5!,'"%55'(!5%+9"8!7(#&!,(#B.&'5!".,!#7!,'"%55'E!
3'9.""'5!&.**5%!#7!&%*.'5!$#+;!$#(*%(!
FEMORAL COMPONENT !
2.,!&%*.'5!,#3"%(.#(!4#+*;5%! F0!&%*!
2.,!5'"%('5!,#3"%(.#(!4#+*;5%! F0!5'"!
2.,!75'+9%! F0!75'+9%!
TIBIAL COMPONENT !
?%*.'5!7.+-,5'"%!&%(9%! 20!&%*!
:'"%('5!7.+-,5'"%!&%(9%! 20!5'"!
2.,!3"%&! 20!3"%&!
POST-OP CONTROL REFERENCES
! :'"!%,.!
! 2.,!F.$!
AXES FEMUR !
F%&#('5!&%48'+.4'5!'B.3! F?1B! 8.,!4"(!-!)+%%!4"(!
F%&#('5!"('+3/%(3%!'B.3! F21B! &%*!4#+*!4"(!-!5'"!4#+*!4"(!
P,.4#+*;5'(!'B.3! P,.!1B! &.*,#.+"!&%*!%,.Q'**!"6$!-!5'"!%,.!!
2(#485%'(!'B.3! 2R1B! "(#48!,(#B!-!)+%%!4"(!
=#3"%(.#(!"'+9%+"!5.+%!7%&6(! =0:! &%*!4#+*!,#3"!-!5'"!4#+*!,#3"!
AXES TIBIA !
2.$.'5!&%48'+.4'5!'B.3! 2?1B! ".$!4"(!-!'+)5!4"(!
2.$.'5!"('+3/%(3%!'B.3! 221B! &44!-!544!
=#3"%(.#(!"'+9%+"!5.+%!".$.'! =2:".$! "'+9%+"!"#!"C#!"!,#3"%(.#(!,#.+"3!'"!5%/%5!#7!".$.'5!,5'"%'6!
2.$.'5!"6$%(45%!'B.3! 2.$!"6$!1B! ".$!4"(!-!".$!"6$!
LIGAMENT INSERTIONS PATELLA
165
Appendix 3. Professional career
STUDIES
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
Faculty of Medicine, Capucijnevoer, 3000 Leuven
Candidate in medical sciences:
1978-81 cum laude
Doctor of Medicine, Surgery and Obstetrics:
1981-82 rst probation cum laude
1982-83 second probation cum laude
1983-84 third probation magna cum laude
1984-85 fourth probation magna cum laude
Degree of Doctor of Medicine, Surgery and Obstetrics obtained on June 28, 1985.
Orthopaedic Training
Approved training program as a full time resident:
01/08/85 - 31/01/87: J.C. MULIER, University Hospital, Pellen be rg, Belgium
01/02/87 - 31/01/88: R.S.M. LING, Princess Eli sabeth Ortho paedic Hospital, Exeter, UK
01/02/88 - 31/07/88: G. FABRY, University Hospital, Pellenberg, Belgium
01/08/88 - 31/07/89: L. BECKERS, Imeldaziekenhuis, Bon hei den, Belgium
01/08/89 - 31/07/90: F. MULIER, H. Hartziekenhuis, Leuven, Belgium
01/08/90 - 31/07/91: G. FABRY, University Hospital, Pellen b erg, Belgium
ECFMG
Clinical science component and English test performed and passed on july 19-20, 1988.
Basic science component per formed and passed on January 22-23, 1991.
Fellowship
in Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy
L. PAULOS and T. ROSENBERG, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Certications
Certied as Orthopaedic Surgeon on august 6, 1991. Number of ministry of health
1/35019/05/480
Certied as Geneesheer specialist in de verzekeringsgeneeskunde en de medische expertise
10/03/09
166
Professional Appointments
1/8/91-31/7/95: Staff member Orthopaedic department UZ Pellenberg, University Hospitals,
Herestraat 1, 3000 Leuven.
1/8/95-present time: Orthopaedic Surgeon, Orthopaedic department, A.Z. St-lucas, St-Lucas-
laan, 8310 Brugge, Belgium.
Titels - Memberships
President of the Belgian Knee Society 1999-2001
President of the Belgian Orthopaedic Association (BVOT) 2002-2003
Board Member of the Belgian Orthopaedic Association (BVOT)
Member of the American Knee Society
Member of the European Society for Sports Medicine and Knee Surgery (ESSKA)
Member and Scientic Advisor of the European Federation of National Associations of Or-
thopaedics and Traumatology (EFORT)
Honorary member of the Socit Franaise de Chirurgie Orthopdique et Traumatologique
(SOFCOT)
International Member of the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)
Member of the Belgian Arthroscopy Association (ABA)
Board Member of the National Council for Quality Control in Medicine (NRKP)
Member of Erkenningscommissie Orthopedie
Recent International Key-Note Lectures
9/10-13/10/06: AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATIONS,
Canberra, Australia.
Presidential Guest of G. Sikorsky, President of the Australian Orthopaedic Association
Kinematics and TKA, Whats the problem?
17/02/07: AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, San Diego, USA
Presidential Guest of G. Engh, President of the American Knee Society
What will TKA look like in 2020: The Impact of Technology, Economics and Demographic
Changes
11/11/08: SOCIT FRANAISE DE CHIRURGIE ORTHOPDIQUE ET TRAUMA-
TOLOGIQUE, Paris, France
Honorary guest of D. Huten, president of SOFCOT
Alignement et cinmatique du genou
02/04/09: BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR SURGERY OF THE KNEE (BASK), Edinburgh,
UK
Presidential Guest of C. Dodd, Oxford, president of BASK
The role of the cruciate ligaments in the native and the replaced knee
167
Recent peer-reviewed publications
Victor J, Labey L, Wong P, Innocenti B, Bellemans J. The inuence of muscle action on
tibiofemoral knee kinematics. J Orthop Res. 2009; JOR-09-0208 accepted for publication.
Victor J, Van Glabbeek F, Vander Sloten J, Parizel PM, Somville J, Bellemans J. An Ex-
perimental model for kinematic analysis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg. [Am] 2009; in press
JBJS-D-09-00498
Victor J. Rotational alignment of the distal femur: A literature review. Orthop Traumatol Surg
Res. 2009; in press doi 10.1016/j.otsr.2009.04.011
Victor J, Van Doninck D, Labey L, Innocenti B, Parizel PM, Bellemans J. How precise can
bony landmarks be determined on a CT scan of the knee? Knee. 2009; in press doi 10.1016/j.
knee.200-9.01.001
Victor J, Wong P, Witvrouw E, Vander Sloten J, Bellemans J. How isometric are the me-
dial patellofemoral, the supercial medial collateral and the lateral collateral ligament of the
knee? Am J Sports Med. 2009; in press doi 10.1177/0363546509337407
Victor J, Mueller JKP, Sharma A, Komistek RD, Nadaud MC, Bellemans J. In vivo kine-
matics after a cruciate substituting total knee arthroplasty. A comparative kinematic analysis
study. Clin Orthop. 2009; in press CORR-D-09-00103
Victor J, Van Doninck D, Labey L, Van Glabbeek F, Parizel P, Bellemans J. A common refer-
ence frame for describing rotation of the distal femur. J Bone Joint Surg. [Br] 2009; 91-B:
683-690
Arnout N, Victor J, Cleppe H, Soenen M, Van Damme G, Bellemans J. Avoidance of patel-
lar eversion improves range of motion after total knee replacement: a prospective random-
ized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009; in press doi 10.1007/s00167-009-
0863-4
Bellemans J, Carpentier K, Vandenneucker H. Vanlauwe J, Victor J. The John Insall Award:
Both morphotype and gender inuence the shape of the knee in patients undergoing TKA.
Clin Orthop. 2009; in press doi 10.1007/s11999-009-1016-2
Innocenti B, Truyens E, Labey L, Wong P, Victor J, Bellemans J. Can medio-lateral baseplate
position and load sharing induce asymptomatic local bone resorption of the proximal tibia?
A nite element study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2009; in press
Harato K, Bourne RB, Victor J, Snyder M, Hart J, Ries MD: Midterm comparison of poste-
rior cruciate-retaining versus substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II pros-
thesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial. Knee. 2008; 15:217-21
Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J et al: Characterized chondrocyte implantation results in bet-
ter structural repair when treating symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee in a randomized
controlled trial versus microfracture. Am J Sports Med. 2008; 36:235-46
Vanlauwe J, Almqvist F, Bellemans J, Huskin JP, Verdonk R, Victor J. Repair of symptomatic
cartilage lesions of the knee: the place of autologous chondrocyte implantation. Acta Orthop
Belg. 2007; 73:145-58
168
Victor J, Ries M, Bellemans J, Robb WM and Van Hellemondt G: High-exion, motion
guided total knee arthroplasty: who benets the most? Orthopedics 2007; 30:77-79
Cool S, Victor J, De Baets T: Does a minimally invasive approach affect positioning of com-
ponents in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? Early results with survivorship analysis.
Acta Orthop Belg. 2006, 72:709-715
Victor J. Which implant do I pick? A glossary of promises. Orthopedics 2006; 29:839-841
Bellemans J, Dhooghe P, Vandenneucker H, Van Damme G, Victor J: Soft tissue balance
in total knee arthroplasty. Does stress relaxation occur perioperatively? Clin Orthop. 2006;
452:49-52
Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Victor J, Vanlauwe J: Flexion contracture in total knee ar-
throplasty. Clin Orthop. 2006; 452: 78-82
Victor J, Bellemans J. Physiologic kinematics as a concept for better exion in TKA. Clin
Orthop. 2006; 452:53-58
Victor J. Do we need a national register? Acta Orthop. Belg. 2006; 72:521-523
Vandamme G, Defoort K, Ducoulombier Y, Van Glabbeek F, Bellemans J, Victor J: What
should the surgeon aim for when performing computer-assisted knee arthroplasty? J Bone
Joint Surg. [Am] 2005. 87A: 52-58
Victor J, Banks S and Bellemans J: Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and
substituting total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2005; 87B: 646-655
Verborgt O and Victor J. Post impingement in posterior stabilised total knee arthroplasty.
Acta Orthop Belg. 2004; 70: 46-50
Victor J and Hoste D. Image-based computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty leads to lower
variability in coronal alignment. Clin Orthop. 2004; 428: 131-139
Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moermans A. Fluoroscopic analysis of the
kinematics of deep exion in total knee arthroplasty. Inuence of posterior condylar offset. J
Bone Joint Surg. [Br] 2002; 84:50-53
Witvrouw E, Victor J, Bellemans J., Rock B, Van Lummel R, Vanderslikke R, Verdonk R.
A correlation study of objective fucntionality and WOMAC in total knee arthroplasty. Knee
Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2002; 10: 347-351