Galley Alexandre, Donnelly Emma, Borukhov Ilya, Lanting Brent, Willing Ryan
Biomechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University, 1151 Richmond St., London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Biomechanical Engineering Research Laboratory, School of Biomedical Engineering, Western University, 1151 Richmond St., London, ON N6A 3K7, Canada.
Bioengineering (Basel). 2025 Jan 25;12(2):112. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering12020112.
Knee joint stability comprises passive (ligaments), active (muscles), and static (articular congruency) contributors. The stability of total knee replacement (TKR) implants can be assessed pre-clinically using joint motion simulators. However, contemporary testing methods with these platforms do not accurately reproduce the biomechanical contributions of passive stabilizers, active stabilizers, or both. A key component of joint stability is therefore missing from laxity tests. A recently developed muscle actuator system (MAS) pairs the quadriceps-driven motion capabilities of an Oxford knee simulator with the prescribed displacements and laxity testing methods of a VIVO robotic knee testing system, which also includes virtual ligament capabilities. Using a TKR-embedded non-cadaveric joint analogue, TKR with two different virtual ligament models were compared to TKR with no active ligaments. Laxity limits were then obtained for both developed models using the conventional style of laxity testing (the VIVO's force/displacement control) and compared with results obtained under similar conditions with the MAS (gravity-dependent muscle control). Differences in joint control methods identified the need for muscle forces providing active joint stability, while differences in the effects of the virtual ligament models identified the importance of physiological representations of collateral ligaments during testing.
膝关节稳定性包括被动(韧带)、主动(肌肉)和静态(关节一致性)因素。全膝关节置换(TKR)植入物的稳定性可在临床前使用关节运动模拟器进行评估。然而,这些平台的当代测试方法无法准确再现被动稳定器、主动稳定器或两者的生物力学作用。因此,松弛度测试中缺少关节稳定性的一个关键组成部分。最近开发的肌肉驱动系统(MAS)将牛津膝关节模拟器的股四头肌驱动运动能力与VIVO机器人膝关节测试系统的规定位移和松弛度测试方法相结合,该系统还包括虚拟韧带功能。使用嵌入TKR的非尸体关节模拟物,将具有两种不同虚拟韧带模型的TKR与没有主动韧带的TKR进行比较。然后使用传统的松弛度测试方式(VIVO的力/位移控制)为两个开发的模型获得松弛度极限,并与在类似条件下使用MAS(重力依赖肌肉控制)获得的结果进行比较。关节控制方法的差异表明需要肌肉力量来提供主动关节稳定性,而虚拟韧带模型效果的差异表明在测试过程中侧副韧带生理表现的重要性。