In-vivo evaluation of the kinematic behavior of an artificial medial meniscus implant: A pilot study using open-MRI

• Published in: Clinical biomechanics (Bristol) 2014-09, Vol.29 (8), p.898-905
• Main Authors: De Coninck, Tineke, Elsner, Jonathan J, Linder-Ganz, Eran, Cromheecke, Michiel, Shemesh, Maoz, Huysse, Wouter, Verdonk, René, Verstraete, Koenraad, Verdonk, Peter
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Biomechanical Phenomena; Displacement; Female; Femur; Humans; Kinematics; Knee Injuries - surgery; Knee Joint - surgery; Knee Prosthesis; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Male; Menisci, Tibial - surgery; Meniscus; Middle Aged; Open MRI; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Pilot Projects; Polycarbonate-urethane implant; Polycarboxylate Cement - chemistry; Prospective Studies; Prostheses and Implants; Range of Motion, Articular; Urethane - chemistry; Weight-Bearing
• ISSN: 0268-0033; 1879-1271
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2014.07.001

Abstract Background In this pilot study we wanted to evaluate the kinematics of a knee implanted with an artificial polycarbonate-urethane meniscus device, designed for medial meniscus replacement. The static kinematic behavior of the implant was compared to the natural medial meniscus of the non-operated knee. A second goal was to evaluate the motion pattern, the radial displacement and the deformation of the meniscal implant. Methods Three patients with a polycarbonate-urethane implant were included in this prospective study. An open-MRI was used to track the location of the implant during static weight-bearing conditions, within a range of motion of 0° to 120° knee flexion. Knee kinematics were evaluated by measuring the tibiofemoral contact points and femoral roll-back. Meniscus measurements (both natural and artificial) included anterior–posterior meniscal movement, radial displacement, and meniscal height. Findings No difference ( P > 0.05) was demonstrated in femoral roll-back and tibiofemoral contact points during knee flexion between the implanted and the non-operated knees. Meniscal measurements showed no significant difference in radial displacement and meniscal height ( P > 0.05) at all flexion angles, in both the implanted and non-operated knees. A significant difference ( P ≤ 0.05) in anterior–posterior movement during flexion was observed between the two groups. Interpretation In this pilot study, the artificial polycarbonate-urethane implant, indicated for medial meniscus replacement, had no influence on femoral roll-back and tibiofemoral contact points, thus suggesting that the joint maintains its static kinematic properties after implantation. Radial displacement and meniscal height were not different, but anterior–posterior movement was slightly different between the implant and the normal meniscus.