Dynamic knee kinematics were analyzed for normal knees in three activities, including two different types of maximum knee flexion. Continuous X-ray images of kneel, squat, and stair climb motions were taken using a large flat panel detector. CT-derived bone models were used for model registration-based 3D kinematic measurement. Three-dimensional joint kinematics and contact locations were determined using three methods: bone-fixed coordinate systems, interrogation of CT-based bone model surfaces, and interrogation of MR-based articular cartilage model surfaces. The femur exhibited gradual external rotation throughout the flexion range. Tibiofemoral contact exhibited external rotation, with contact locations translating posterior while maintaining 158 to 208 external rotation from 208 to 808 of flexion. From 808 to maximum flexion, contact locations showed a medial pivot pattern. Kinematics based on bone-fixed coordinate systems differed from kinematics based on interrogation of CT and MR surfaces. Knee kinematics varied significantly by activity, especially in deep flexion. No posterior subluxation occurred for either femoral condyle in maximum knee flexion. Normal knees accommodate a range of motions during various activities while maintaining geometric joint congruency. ß

The purpose of this study was to compare three-dimensional (3D) kinematic measurements from single-plane radiographic projections using bone models created from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT). MRI is attractive because there is no ionizing radiation, but geometric field distortion and poor bone contrast degrade model fidelity compared to CT. We created knee bone models of three healthy volunteers from both MRI and CT and performed three quantitative comparisons. First, differences between MRI-and CT-derived bone model surfaces were measured. Second, shape matching motion measurements were done with bone models for X-ray image sequences of a squat activity. Third, synthetic X-ray images in known poses were created and shape matching was again performed. Differences in kinematic results were quantified in terms of root mean square (RMS) error. Mean differences between CT and MRI model surfaces for the femur and tibia were À0.08 mm and À0.14 mm, respectively. There were significant differences in three of six kinematic parameters comparing matching results from MRI-derived bone models and CT-derived bone models. RMS errors for tibiofemoral poses averaged 0.74 mm for sagittal translations, 2.0 mm for mediolateral translations, and 1.48 for all rotations with MRI models. Average RMS errors were 0.53 mm for sagittal translations, 1.6 mm for mediolateral translations, and 0.548 for all rotations with the CT models. Single-plane X-ray imaging with modelbased shape matching provides kinematic measurements with sufficient accuracy to assess knee motions using either MRI-or CT-derived bone models. However, extra care should be taken when using MRI-derived bone models because model inaccuracies will affect the quality of the shape matching results. ß

We compared the alignment of 39 total knee replacements implanted using the conventional alignment guide system with 37 implanted using a CT-based navigation system, performed by a single surgeon. The knees were evaluated using full-length weight-bearing anteroposterior radiographs, lateral radiographs and CT scans. The mean hip-knee-ankle angle, coronal femoral component angle and coronal tibial component angle were 181.8 degrees (174.2 degrees to 188.3 degrees), 88.5 degrees (84.0 degrees to 91.8 degrees) and 89.7 degrees (86.3 degrees to 95.1 degrees), respectively for the conventional group and 180.8 degrees (178.2 degrees to 185.1 degrees), 89.3 degrees (85.8 degrees to 92.0 degrees) and 89.9 degrees (88.0 degrees to 93.0 degrees), respectively for the navigated group. The mean sagittal femoral component angle was 85.5 degrees (80.6 degrees to 92.8 degrees) for the conventional group and 89.6 degrees (85.5 degrees to 94.0 degrees) for the navigated group. The mean rotational femoral and tibial component angles were -0.7 degrees (-8.8 degrees to 9.8 degrees) and -3.3 degrees (-16.8 degrees to 5.8 degrees) for the conventional group and -0.6 degrees (-3.5 degrees to 3.0 degrees) and 0.3 degrees (-5.3 degrees to 7.7 degrees) for the navigated group. The ideal angles of all alignments in the navigated group were obtained at significantly higher rates than in the conventional group. Our results demonstrated significant improvements in component positioning with a CT-based navigation system, especially with respect to rotational alignment.

No abstract

No abstract