Patient-specific musculoskeletal models as a framework for comparing ACL function in unicompartmental versus bicruciate retaining arthroplasty
- PMID: 33913346
- DOI: 10.1177/09544119211011827
Patient-specific musculoskeletal models as a framework for comparing ACL function in unicompartmental versus bicruciate retaining arthroplasty
Abstract
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has been shown to provide superior functional outcomes compared to total knee arthroplasty and have motivated development of advanced implant designs including bicruciate retaining knee arthroplasty. However, few validated frameworks are available to directly compare the effect of implant design and surgical techniques on ligament function and joint kinematics. In the present study, the subject-specific lower extremity models were developed based on musculoskeletal modeling framework using force-dependent kinematics method, and validated against in vivo telemetric data. The experiment data of two subjects who underwent TKA were obtained from the SimTK "Grand Challenge Competition" repository, and integrated into the subject-specific lower extremity model. Five walking gait trials and three different knee implant models for each subject were used as partial inputs for the model to predict knee biomechanics for unicompartmental, bicruciate retaining, and total knee arthroplasty. The results showed no significant differences in the tibiofemoral contact forces or angular kinematic parameters between three groups. However, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty demonstrated significantly more posterior tibial location between 0% and 40% of the gait cycle (p < 0.017). Significant differences in range of tibiofemoral anterior/posterior translation and medial/lateral translation were also observed between unicompartmental and bicruciate retaining arthroplasty (p < 0.017). Peak values of anterior cruciate ligament forces differed between unicompartmental and bicruciate retaining arthroplasty from 10% to 30% of the gait cycle. Findings of this study indicate that unicompartmental and bicruciate retaining arthroplasty do not have identical biomechanics and point to the complementary role of anterior cruciate ligament and articular geometry in guiding knee function. Further, the patient-specific musculoskeletal model developed provides a reliable framework for assessing new implant designs, and effect of surgical techniques on knee biomechanics following arthroplasty.
Keywords: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; bicruciate retaining knee arthroplasty; contact forces; kinematics; musculoskeletal multibody dynamics.
Similar articles
-
Leveraging subject-specific musculoskeletal modeling to assess effect of anterior cruciate ligament retaining total knee arthroplasty during walking gait.Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2020 Dec;234(12):1445-1456. doi: 10.1177/0954411920947204. Epub 2020 Aug 3. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2020. PMID: 32741249
-
Fluoroscopic and radiostereometric analysis of a bicruciate-retaining versus a posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.Bone Joint J. 2023 Jan;105-B(1):35-46. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.105B1.BJJ-2022-0465.R2. Bone Joint J. 2023. PMID: 36587259 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Differences in kinematics and kinetics during gait between total knee arthroplasty implant designs.Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2025 Feb;122:106404. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106404. Epub 2024 Dec 3. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2025. PMID: 39667041
-
The Cruciate Ligaments in Total Knee Arthroplasty.Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016 May-Jun;45(4):E153-60. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2016. PMID: 27327919 Review.
-
Bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a review.J Knee Surg. 2014 Jun;27(3):199-205. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1374812. Epub 2014 Apr 24. J Knee Surg. 2014. PMID: 24764232 Review.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical