Is a greater degree of constraint really harmful? Clinical biomechanical comparative study between condylar constrained knee and rotating hinge prosthesis.

Biomechanics Condylar constrained prostheses (CCK) Inertial sensors Rotating hinge knee (RHK) Tibial rotation

Journal

Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon)
ISSN: 1879-1271
Titre abrégé: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8611877

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 Nov 2023
Historique:
received: 31 07 2023
revised: 04 11 2023
accepted: 10 11 2023
medline: 18 11 2023
pubmed: 18 11 2023
entrez: 17 11 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The real degree of constraint of rotating hinge knee and condylar constrained prostheses is a matter of discussion in revision knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to compare the tibial rotation between implants in the clinical settings. An investigator blinded experimental study was designed including 20 patients: in 10 of them a rotating hinge knee prosthesis (Endomodel®, LINK) was implanted and in the remaining 10 a constrained condylar knee prosthesis (LCCK®, Zimmer) was used. A medial parapatellar approach was performed and implantation was performed according to conventional surgical technique. Tibial rotation was measured with two accelerometers in full extension and at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. Pre and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was recorded. Both groups were homogenous in age (73.4 years in rotating hinge knee prosthesis vs 74 years in constrained condylar knee group), sex, laterality and preoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (p > 0.05). The postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was significantly higher in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group (80.98 vs 76.28). The degrees of tibial rotation measured by inertial sensors in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group were also significantly higher than those measured in the constrained condylar knee group (5.66° vs 2.1°) with p = 0.001. Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower rotational constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice and it may increase the clinical satisfaction. The clinical significance: Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The real degree of constraint of rotating hinge knee and condylar constrained prostheses is a matter of discussion in revision knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to compare the tibial rotation between implants in the clinical settings.
METHODS METHODS
An investigator blinded experimental study was designed including 20 patients: in 10 of them a rotating hinge knee prosthesis (Endomodel®, LINK) was implanted and in the remaining 10 a constrained condylar knee prosthesis (LCCK®, Zimmer) was used. A medial parapatellar approach was performed and implantation was performed according to conventional surgical technique. Tibial rotation was measured with two accelerometers in full extension and at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. Pre and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was recorded.
FINDINGS RESULTS
Both groups were homogenous in age (73.4 years in rotating hinge knee prosthesis vs 74 years in constrained condylar knee group), sex, laterality and preoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (p > 0.05). The postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was significantly higher in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group (80.98 vs 76.28). The degrees of tibial rotation measured by inertial sensors in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group were also significantly higher than those measured in the constrained condylar knee group (5.66° vs 2.1°) with p = 0.001.
INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS
Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower rotational constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice and it may increase the clinical satisfaction. The clinical significance: Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37976691
pii: S0268-0033(23)00280-2
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2023.106149
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

106149

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest “Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.”

Auteurs

Víctor-Estuardo León-Román (VE)

Villalba General Hospital, Carretera de Alpedrete a Moralzarzal M-608 km 41, 28400 Collado Villalba, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: drestuardoleon@gmail.com.

David García-Mato (D)

Departamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avda. de la Universidad, 30, 28911 Leganés, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Calle Dr. Esquerdo, 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: dgmato@ing.uc3m.es.

Irene Isabel López-Torres (II)

Fundación Jiménez Díaz Hospital. Av. Reyes Católicos 2, 28040, Madrid, Spain.

Javier Vaquero-Martín (J)

Gregorio Marañón General Hospital, C/ Doctor Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain; Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Calle Dr. Esquerdo, 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain.

José Antonio Calvo-Haro (JA)

Gregorio Marañón General Hospital, C/ Doctor Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain; Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain.

Javier Pascau (J)

Departamento de Bioingeniería e Ingeniería Aeroespacial, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Avda. de la Universidad, 30, 28911 Leganés, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Calle Dr. Esquerdo, 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: jpascau@ing.uc3m.es.

Pablo Sanz-Ruíz (P)

Gregorio Marañón General Hospital, C/ Doctor Esquerdo 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain; Surgery Department, Faculty of Medicine, Complutense University of Madrid, Plaza Ramón y Cajal s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Calle Dr. Esquerdo, 46, 28007, Madrid, Spain.

Classifications MeSH