Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  209 / 324 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 209 / 324 Next Page
Page Background

to avoid because femoral component flexion

together with a pronounced posterior slope of

the tibia might allow for impingement even

with little or no clinical hyperextension [17].

The tibial post is particularly vulnerable to

wear from rotational malalignment between

femur and tibia [17]. According to anterior

impingement a more anterior placement of the

post on the tibial plateau adversely effects

polyaethylene wear and damage [5]. Amount

of wear and location of tibial post damage

again are design dependant and can occur on

the anterior and posterior flanges but as well

on the medial and lateral surfaces of the post as

shown in retrieval studies [11].

FURTHER DIRECTIONS

IN POSTERIOR

STABILIZATION

If the problems of dislocation and post wear

could be solved, the concept of posterior stabi-

lization would become even more attractive

because it allows for guided motion of the

prosthetic knee in a more natural fashion.

Optimal dislocation safety respecting the dis-

location safety factor is probably the number

one requirement when introducing a new PS

design (fig. 5). Increased contact area for the

post-cam mechanism and a rounded post to

allow for rotational freedom theoretically

reduce post wear and damage. New materials

might offer higher stability and better wear

resistance [9]. Mobile plateau posterior stabili-

zed knees have been shown to reduce contact

stress of the post-cam mechanism [16]. The bi-

cruciate stabilized knee is still experimental

[18]. Perfect alignment of long bone axes and

restoration of correct femorotibial rotation are

still mainstays to avoid component and post

overload.

Whereas for the purpose of this article the post

box part of the PS-knee has been described

isolated from the rest of the prosthesis it has to

be kept in mind that the post and box are func-

tioning as a unit together with the other parts

of the components and are dependant from the

condylar and tibial geometry.

14

es

JOURNÉES LYONNAISES DE CHIRURGIE DU GENOU

208

Fig. 5 : The dislocation safety factor (DSF)

was defined as the vertical distance from the

tip of the post to the inferior border of the

cam

(G

EMINI

SL®, Link, with permission).