Convened under the auspicious of esteemed endorsers - ISTA

vivo motion of MB total knee arthroplasty including the PE during stairs up and down.Patients and methods: We investigated the in vivo knee kinematics of 11 knees (10 patients)implanted with PFC-Sigma RP-F (DePuy). Under fluoroscopic surveillance, each patient didstairs up and down motion. And motion between each component was analyzed using two- tothree-dimensional registration technique, which used computer-assisted design (CAD) modelsto reproduce the spatial position of the femoral, tibial components, and PE (implanted with fourtantalum beads intra-operatively) from single-view fluoroscopic images. We evaluated therange of motion between the femoral and tibial components during being grounded, axialrotation between the femoral component and PE, the femoral and tibial component, and the PEand tibial component during being grounded.Results: The mean flexion angle of being grounded during stairs up was 72.0° ～ 8.74° (Max,Min). The femoral component relative to the tibial component demonstrated 8.77° externalrotation during stairs up. The PE relative to the tibial component demonstrated 8.23°externalrotation and the femoral component relative to the PE demonstrated 3.93°external rotationduring stairs up. The average ROM during stairs down was from 40.8° to 5.75° (Max, Min). Theexternal rotation of the femoral component relative to the tibial component was 4.73° duringstairs down. The tibial component rotated 6.36° relative to the PE and the femoral componentrotated 3.95° relative to the PE. In both two movement, there was a positive correlation betweenthe femoral component relative to the tibial component and the PE relative to the tibialcomponent in terms of axial rotation at each flexion angle.Discussion and conclusion: In this study, we evaluated the in vivo motion of the PE duringstairs up and down. there was a positive correlation between the femoral component relative tothe tibial component and the PE relative to the tibial component about axial rotation at eachflexion angle.Thursday, October 7, 2010, 10:20-11:00Session A3: Bearing Mobility IssuesA Comparison of Mobile-Bearing Versus Fixed-Bearing Total KneeArthroplasty*Seyed Kazemi - . - ., IranHamid Reza Seyyed Hosseinzadeh - Akhtar OrthopaedIc Hospital, Shahid Beheshti MedicalUniversity - Tehran, Iran*Email: seyedmortesakazemi@yahoo.comBackground: Currently there are various knee prosthesis designs available each with its plusand minus points; there is no general consensus on whether mobile-bearing knees arefunctionally better than fixed-bearing ones. This study is designed to compare outcomes aftertotal knee arthroplasty with both of the above prostheses.Materials & Methods: 50 patients (68 knees) who'd had a total knee arthroplasty betweenApril 1999 and April 2008 at both Akhtar and Kian Hospitals for primary osteoarthritis wereselected. In 30 cases a fixed-bearing knee (Scorpio®, Stryker) and in the remaining 38 amobile-bearing prosthesis (Rotaglide®, Corin Group) was used. Patients' knees were scoredfile:///E|/ISTA2010-Abstracts.htm[12/7/2011 3:15:47 PM]