Premium
Size and position of a single condyle allograft influence knee kinematics
Author(s) -
Elias John J.,
DesJardins John D.,
Faust Alfred F.,
Lietman Steven A.,
Chao Edmund Y. S.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
journal of orthopaedic research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.041
H-Index - 155
eISSN - 1554-527X
pISSN - 0736-0266
DOI - 10.1002/jor.1100170412
Subject(s) - tibia , femur , condyle , valgus , medicine , kinematics , cadaver , orthodontics , knee joint , orientation (vector space) , anatomy , surgery , mathematics , physics , geometry , classical mechanics
Abstract An optimal match for size and shape between the donor femur and the host knee is considered a critical factor influencing the outcome of a knee allograft implantation. An in vitro allograft model was developed to determine the influence of the size and position of a lateral distal femoral condylar allograft on knee kinematics. Functional knee motion was simulated in a cadaver host knee in the intact state after removing and reimplanting the native lateral condyle of the distal femur and after serially replacing the native condyle with eight donor allografts. Each allograft was first tested in an optimal position and subsequently shifted 3 mm proximal and 3 mm distal to the joint line to quantify changes in joint kinematics due to the position of the allograft. The intact knee and the knee with the ideally implanted native allograft followed similar kinematic trends. Decreasing the width of the allograft increased the valgus knee orientation at full flexion, translated the tibia posteriorly at full extension, and externally rotated the tibia throughout knee flexion. The proximal shift in allograft position increased the valgus orientation at full extension, translated the tibia posteriorly at mid‐flexion, and externally rotated the tibia throughout flexion. The distal shift in position had the opposite effect on the kinematics of the proximal shift. These results indicate that improving techniques for preoperative size‐matching and intraoperative allograft placement may help to reduce biomechanical complications following implantation of the allograft.