Effects of a surface matching articular resurfacing device on tibiofemoral contact pressure: results from continuous dynamic flexion–extension cycles

Abstract

The data suggest that resurfacing with the contoured articular prosthetic device does not pose any immediate deleterious effects to the opposing surfaces based on peak and area contact pressure in a continuous dynamic in vitro application. However, long-term in vivo effects remain to be evaluated.

Limited Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis of the Knee

“…Their data implied the safety, biocompatibility, and functionality of the implant, and the authors stated that expanded animal or preclinical human studies were justified on the basis of their research. Several clinical studies of the HemiCAP Focal Femoral Condyle Resurfacing Prosthesis (Arthrosurface) have been undertaken to date, with follow-up of up to six years 12,15,19 . Von Hasselbach and Witzel reported on 121 patients (mean age, 52.5 years) who were managed with the HemiCAP Resurfacing Prosthesis 20 .…”

“…Most notably, important considerations for normal knee kinematics such as the menisci, cruciate ligaments, and the native joint contour are preserved. Also, soft-tissue tension is unaltered as transarticular pressure profiles are normalized, eliminating overstuffing and potentially improving functional outcomes and relieving pain [12][13][14] . Healthy articular surfaces are preserved and share weight-bearing with the implant, potentially improving long-term survival.…”

“…Histological data 11 obtained one year after implantation have confirmed device biocompatibility and incorporation into the femoral condyle. Becher et al evaluated transarticular tibiofemoral pressure profiles in a variety of settings and reported that the device is biomechanically safe 12,13,15 . A study of patellofemoral kinematics after limited trochlear resurfacing demonstrated that the prosthesis provides a favorable alternative to prior implant designs by reestablishing anatomic patellofemoral surface and knee contact pressures 14 .…”

“…Both basic science [11][12][13][14][15] and clinical [16][17][18][19] studies have offered potential support for so-called limited arthroplasty, particularly for the treatment of chondral and osteochondral defects in a carefully selected population. Rather than a completely new treatment option, inlay resurfacing should be seen as an extension of current reconstructive methods, with its own specific technical demands (Table I).…”

No implant migration and good subjective outcome of a novel customized femoral resurfacing metal implant for focal chondral lesions

“…A similar focal knee resurfacing method with a metal implant has shown progressing radiographic Kellgren–Lawrence osteoarthritis scores even at short-term follow-up [8]. However, it has been stipulated that correct implant placement does not lead to increased contact pressures [1, 3]. The purpose with the development of an individualized implant and instrumentation system was to achieve accurate and consistent implant position at a correct angle and depth, thereby minimizing the risk for a misaligned and protruding implants in order to avoid further cartilage damage with the expectation to maintain the good results even at long-term.…”