Influence of lateral release on patellar tracking and patellofemoral contact characteristics after total knee arthroplasty

Abstract

The influence of lateral release of retinaculum on patellofemoral kinematics and contact characteristics after total knee arthroplasty was investigated in vitro. Lateral release altered the patellar tracking in patellar flexion, rotation, tilting, and translation. The contact force was decreased at high flexion angles. The contact area was slightly decreased and the contact region shifted laterally on the patellar button and medially on the femoral component at most of the flexion angles. The results suggest that the lateral release in total knee arthroplasty can change some patellar tracking and patellofemoral joint contact characteristics.

Three‐dimensional patellar motion at the natural knee during passive flexion/extension. An in vitro study

“…For the first time, the present study reports patellar motion with respect to both the femur and tibial reference frames, from a large population size, for a large flexion/extension arc, and according to current international recommendations. The results reported concur with comparable reports from the literature, [9][10][11]15,16,18,34 but are definitely more robust and consistent. All patterns were found to be generally repeatable intra-and interspecimens.…”

“…In this range, PFJ rotations and translation along the mediolateral axis were very similar to those reported in the present study. Where the analyzed flexion range was larger than 908, 15,16 both the articular convention and the patellar anatomical reference frame definition were different from those in the present study. In these studies, respectively, in seven and nine knee specimens and within a 0-1058 TFJ flexion range, PFJ axial rotation and lateral translation were smaller than those reported in the present study.…”

“…A number of studies, both in vitro [9][10][11][12][15][16][17][18][19][20] and in vivo, [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] have dealt with the identification of normal patellar motion, but differences in the accuracy of the measurement system used, range of knee motion examined, magnitude and direction of the load applied, and articular and anatomical conventions, hinder a thorough comparison of the results. 10,13 In only four studies 9,10,18,20 the articular convention for the description of PFJ motion was the same as that of the present study; not in a single the patellar anatomical reference frame definition was the same as that of the present study.…”

“…10,13 For this goal, patellar motion must be tracked in all six degrees of freedom, thus overcoming the traditional twodimensional X-ray based views. 14 A number of studies, both in vitro [9][10][11][12][15][16][17][18][19][20] and in vivo, [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] have dealt with patellar tracking by different methodological approaches and measuring devices. Among them, magnetic resonance and X-ray stereo-photogrammetry do not allow the acquisition of natural and continuous movements in a large range of knee positions.…”

Patellofemoral kinematics during knee flexion-extension: An in vitro study

“…12 A number of studies of patellar tracking have been conducted, both in vitro and in vivo. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] A range of tracking patterns (reviewed in ref. 17) were reported, probably reflecting the differing methods used.…”