Quadriceps force during knee extension after non-hinged and hinged TKA: An in vitro study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic view of the test set-up according to Stukenborg-Colsmanetal. (2002). 1. Control unit 2. Interface 3. Valve 4. Pressure-valve 5. Tibia frame 6. Femur frame 7. Cylinder (tibia) 8. Cylinder frame 9. Cylinder (quadriceps) 10. Cylinder (hamstrings) 12. Force transducer (quadriceps) 13. Force transducer (tibia) 14. Angle measurement (tibia)

Figure 2. Side view of the knee simulator.

Figure 3. Quadriceps forces required to generate an extension moment of 31 Nm under physiological knee conditions, after implantation of non-hinged knee prosthesis (Gemini (GEM; Link, Germany) or Interax I.S.A. (INT;Stryker/Howmedica, Ireland)), or a hinged knee prosthesis (RO, Rotations-Knie; Link, Germany) from 120° knee flexion to full extension. Mean values of 3 repetitions. (Bars represent SD).

Quadriceps force to generate an extension moment of 31 Nm under physiologic knee conditions, after implantation of non-hinged knee prosthesis (GEM and INT) and a hinged knee prosthesis (RO): Mean values of 3 repetitions at specific knee flexion angle, with standard deviation (SD), percentage of forces of physiologic knee conditions, significance compared to physiologic knee conditions (p1) and between the types of knee prostheses (p2 and p3)

	[N]	SD	Quadriceps force % of phys. knee	p1	p2	p3
0° knee flexion
Physiological	798	284
GEM	1,257	274	158	0.1
INT	1,009	153	127	0.3	0.2
RO	689	81	86	0.2	0.002	0.05
30° knee flexion
Physiological	731	74
GEM	706	48	96	0.3
INT	807	79	110	0.08	0.2
RO	753	58	103	0.3	0.1	0.1
60° knee flexion
Physiological	867	97
GEM	1,040	103	120	0.02
INT	1,059	163	122	0.02	0.4
RO	1,052	93	121	0.02	0.4	0.3
90° knee flexion
Physiological	1,245	125
GEM	1,399	125	112	0.05
INT	1,443	196	116	0.3	0.3
RO	1,366	106	110	0.06	0.2	0.2

Stukenborg-Colsman C, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Wirth C J. Tibiofemoral contact stress after total knee arthroplasty: comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing inlay designs. Acta Orthop Scand 2002; 73: 638–46

 PubMedGoogle Scholar