Establishing femoral component rotation using a dynamic tensioner does not improve patellar position after total knee replacement with use of anatomic implants: A case-control study

Bartosz M Maciąg; Bartłomiej Wilk; Mateusz Nawrocki; Marcin Łapiński; Maciej Świercz; Krystian Żarnovsky; Olga Adamska; Artur Stolarczyk

doi:10.1016/j.knee.2024.04.001

Establishing femoral component rotation using a dynamic tensioner does not improve patellar position after total knee replacement with use of anatomic implants: A case-control study

Knee. 2024 May 10:48:217-225. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2024.04.001. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Bartosz M Maciąg¹, Bartłomiej Wilk¹, Mateusz Nawrocki¹, Marcin Łapiński², Maciej Świercz¹, Krystian Żarnovsky¹, Olga Adamska¹, Artur Stolarczyk¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Międzyleski Specialist Hospital, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
² Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Międzyleski Specialist Hospital, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. Electronic address: marcin.lapinski@wum.edu.pl.

PMID: 38733872
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2024.04.001

Abstract

Background: Anterior knee pain (AKP) is one of the reasons for dissatisfaction after total knee replacement (TKR). It may result from patellofemoral joint dysfunction, caused by improper rotation of implant components. The aim of this study was to analyze patella positioning in patients after standard measured resection TKR and TKR with a use of a dynamic tensioner, and to assess the frequency of AKP, range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcome measures 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively.

Methods: The study consisted of 127 patients who underwent TKR. Eighty-nine of them treated with use of the dynamic tensioner FUZION formed the study group; the remainder formed the control group. All participants received cemented PERSONA MC without patella resurfacing. All patients had a standard anteroposterior, lateral weight-bearing, long-leg view X-ray and computed tomography examination in 30° of knee flexion following the procedure.

Results: There were no significant differences between the study and the control groups regarding: posterior condylar axis (PCA)-patella angle, surgical transepicondylar axis (sTEA)-patella angle, PCA-sTEA angle, deviation from 90° in PCA-patella, sTEA-patella and PCA-sTEA angles. No significant difference was found in a ratio of obtaining PCA-patella angle deviation of more than 3°. Regarding clinical parameters, statistically and questionablly clinically significant difference in favor of the Study Group was found in Forgotten Joint Score 6 weeks and 3 months post-operativley and ROM 6 weeks post-operatively. However, such difference was not found by analyzing ROM 3 months post-operatively, AKP and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores.

Conclusion: Compared with the standard 3° of femoral component external rotation, use of a dynamic tensioner does not allow for more accurate restoration of the patellar facet position with reference to the PCA.

Keywords: Dynamic-tensioner; Femoral rotation; Fusion; Patellar position; TKA.