In total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, a surgeon typically affixes two prosthetic components to the patient's bone structure—a first to the patient's femur and a second to the patient's tibia. These components are typically known as the femoral component and the tibial component, respectively. The femoral component is placed on a patient's distal femur after appropriate resection of the femur. The femoral component is usually metallic, having a highly polished outer condylar articulating surface, which is commonly J-shaped when viewed from a medial or lateral side.
A common type of tibial component uses a tray or plateau that generally conforms to the patient's resected proximal tibia. The tibial component also usually includes a stem that extends into a surgically formed opening in the patient's intramedullary canal.
A plastic or polymeric (often ultra high molecular weight polyethylene) insert or bearing fits between the tray of the tibial component and the femoral component. This insert provides a surface against which the femoral component condylar portion articulates, i.e., moves in gross motion corresponding generally to the motion of the femur relative to the tibia. One type of design is a posterior-stabilized design in which the insert includes a post that fits within box walls and a posterior cam of the femoral component, with the posterior cam stabilizing the implant against anterior tibial sliding when the knee is flexed.
A common complaint of TKR patients is that the replaced knee does not function like a normal knee or does not “feel normal.” The replaced knee does not achieve normal knee kinematics or motion and generally has a more limited range of motion than a normal knee. Currently available designs typically produce kinematics different than the normal knee during gait due to the complex nature of the knee joint and the motion of the femur and tibia relative to one another during flexion and extension. For example, it is known that, in addition to rotating about a generally horizontal axis during flexion and extension, the tibia also rotates about its longitudinal axis. Such longitudinal rotation is typically referred to as either external or internal rotation, depending on whether reference is being made to the femur or tibia, respectively.
Few currently available posterior-stabilized designs achieve this longitudinal rotation. Most currently available designs provide a limited space between the insert post and the box walls of the femoral component, to increase insert post strength and contact area between the femoral posterior cam and the insert post. The limited space between the insert post and the box walls would, in most cases, impede the ability of the post to rotate longitudinally—that is, either by external or internal rotation within the box wall, as would be the natural motion of a healthy knee. Because few designs achieve this longitudinal rotation, this impediment is not generally recognized.
Constructing a total knee prosthesis which replicates the kinematics of a natural knee has been an on-going challenge in the orthopedic field. Several attempts have been made and are well known in the prior art, including those shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,264,697, 6,325,828, US2005/0143832, and US2008/0119940. Other systems have been designed to allow rotation by altering the surfaces of the box wall. However, modification of the box wall can reduce the effectiveness of the box in constraining both varus and valgus motion during flexion with tibial inserts that have a wider, constrained post. Other systems and approaches that attempt to more closely replicate the structure and function of the human knee produce modifications to the post that narrow its width. Those implementations, however, reduce the contact surface between the post and the posterior cam surface of the femoral component, which can lead to increased post deformation or wear in the cam and post contact region, and can reduce the amount of material in the post, thereby reducing its strength.
Existing designs leave room for improvement in simulating the structure and operation of actual knee joints.
Disclosed herein are devices that help facilitate a more natural motion in the tibial and femoral components of a reconstructed, replaced knee. In general, the tibial components include a tibial insert post that fits within a box wall of the femoral component and rotates therein. The post has anterior, posterior, medial and lateral walls, with a recess disposed on either the medial or lateral side of the post. The recess creates clearance with the femoral posterior-stabilized box wall during flexion and extension. This clearance allows relative femoral and tibial rotation to occur (longitudinal rotation), to track a more natural motion in the knee during flexion and extension. The width of the post is maintained across the posterior portion, thus helping maintain the strength of the post.
In certain implementations, the tibial insert has a base, a post with a vertical axis, a medial and a lateral sidewall, a posterior and an anterior face, a superior end, and an inferior end that extends from the base. The insert includes a first junction between the anterior face and medial sidewall, a second junction between the anterior face and the lateral sidewall, and a recess in the medial sidewall that extends across the first junction. In certain applications, the recess has a first boundary disposed along the medial sidewall substantially parallel to the vertical axis and a second boundary disposed along the medial sidewall substantially perpendicular to the vertical axis. The second boundary can extend across the first junction and, in some cases, protrude along the inferior region of the anterior face.
The posterior face of the insert is preferably configured with a first width between medial and lateral sidewalls along the posterior face, while the anterior face has a second width between the second boundary and lateral sidewall, that first width typically being greater than the second width, to help maintain strength in the post. In certain implementations, a shelf is disposed along the medial sidewall, extending substantially perpendicular to the first boundary and may be disposed superior to the base. The recess has a depth, as measured from the medial sidewall, and that depth may be variable. Certain implementations provide the recess at a first depth measured from the first boundary, wherein the first depth has a value of about 0.25 mm to about 1.5 mm. The first depth may also fall within that range, for example about 0.5 mm. In many applications, the recess depth will vary, including a minimum depth and a maximum depth. The minimum depth may be found in the inferior region of the recess, such that the recess slopes from smaller depth at the inferior or shelf end of the post to a deeper depth at or near the superior end.
Orthopedic surgical systems are also contemplated that incorporate improved tibial posts. In certain embodiments, a knee prosthesis system is disclosed, having a femoral component having first and second condylar surfaces, a tibial tray, and a tibial insert according to any of the embodiments described herein. The tibial insert is configured with first and second bearing surfaces that mate with the respective first and second condylar surfaces, providing an interface about which the condylar surfaces can articulate.
The femoral component includes a box receptacle that receives the post. In certain embodiments, the receptacle has a first set of opposing walls and a second set of opposing walls, a first wall of the first set of opposing walls being near the medial sidewall at a position inferior to the first boundary and being spaced away from the medial sidewall at a position superior to the first boundary. In certain preferred applications, one of the sets of opposing walls are positioned on the anterior and posterior sides of the box and provide respective cam surfaces that abut the posterior and anterior sides of the post during flexion/extension.
The post, with its recess, can rotate axially about the vertical axis of the post, allowing the tibial component to rotate longitudinally. That motion can, in some implementations, move a portion of the anterior face into alignment with the first (medial) wall of the box. In operation, rotating the post axially about the vertical axis moves a portion of the medial sidewall away from the first wall. In various system implementations, rotating the post axially about the vertical axis moves the recess toward the medial sidewall.
Methods of actuating a knee prosthesis are also contemplated. A base is provided, with a post extending from the base, along with a femoral component having a slot disposed generally between two condylar surfaces. Actuating the prosthesis can involve contacting a first wall of the slot with a first portion but not a second portion of a medial surface of the post, contacting a second wall of the slot with a lateral surface of the post; and rotating the post angularly within the slot to align the second portion toward the first wall. In certain implementations, aligning the second portion toward the first wall reduces contact between the second wall of the slot and the lateral surface of the post. The second portion of the medial surface can extend from the medial surface to an anterior surface of the post. In certain applications, rotating the post moves the anterior face into contact with the first wall. When rotating the post, an anterior wall of the slot lifts upwardly with respect to the slot. In certain methods, the post is actuated by a cam surface disposed within the slot.
Methods of treatment are also included. Representative methods involve installing an orthopedic insert within a joint and installing an articulating housing about or within which the insert can rotate axially. The insert has a means for facilitating the rotation of at least a portion of the insert (such as a tibial post) within a portion of the housing (such as a femoral component). In certain implementations, the insert has a recess or other clearance surface that allows it to clear a boundary of the housing during rotation. In certain implementations, the rotation occurs through an angle of motion that approximates relative rotation between the insert and the housing, as would occur in a normal joint, such as a knee.
The foregoing and other objects and advantages will be apparent upon consideration of the following detailed description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which like reference characters refer to like parts throughout, and in which:
Disclosed herein are devices and systems used for orthopedic surgeries that provide a more natural motion between the tibial and femoral components of a reconstructed knee. Devices disclosed herein include tibial inserts that are used with femoral components to provide a more natural knee motion for a patient who has undergone total knee replacement. The tibial post has a sidewall with a recess that allows for better tibial and femoral rotation during flexion and extension of the knee. In general, a tibial insert post is provided with anterior, posterior, medial and lateral walls, and with a recess disposed on either the medial or lateral side of the post. The recess creates clearance with the posterior stabilized box wall of the femoral component during flexion and extension. This clearance allows femoral/tibial rotation to occur, to provide a more natural motion in the knee during flexion and extension. The width of the post is maintained across the posterior portion to minimize the reduction of the strength of the post.
While a width reduction or relief cutout of a tibial post decreases rotational interference, it may also reduce the constraint provided by the post for other types of motion. For example, the reduced post may provide less constraint on varus and/or valgus motion of the knee compared to a full standard posterior-stabilizing post. Thus, the design and shape of a post relief can be chosen to manage this tradeoff between allowing natural tibiofemoral rotation and providing adequate constraining on other types of motion. The relief design can leverage the native anatomy of a patient's knee to increase performance of an implant and provide both natural motion and sufficient support to the knee. For example, if the bone and surrounding soft tissue of a patient's knee is strong enough to resist valgus motion but not varus motion, a post can be provided with a medial relief. Such a post allows for natural rotation and resists varus motion that the knee may not be strong enough to resist on its own. The post may have reduced constraint against valgus motion, but such motion is resisted by the patient's native anatomy, and thus the implant leverages the patient's anatomy to achieve both natural motion and adequate constraint against harmful varus and valgus motions. Likewise, if a patient's native anatomy is strong enough to resist varus motion but not valgus motion, a post can be provided with a lateral relief, rather than a medial relief. The lateral relief can provide constraint on valgus motion and a reduced constraint on varus motion, which is supplemented by the strength of the patient's anatomy to provide sufficient support against harmful motion while also providing adequate natural motion during flexion and extension.
As shown in
As shown in
The top view perspectives of
Providing the post with a recess on the medial wall thus allows the post and box walls to rotate, with respect to each other, for more natural knee movement compared to prior art systems. Because the posterior surface 112 is maintained at its full width W2, the post 104 can also maintain contact with the posterior surface 210 of the box wall 200, during flexion, to help maximize the strength of the implant. In this way, the improved insert post achieves a balance of more natural rotation during flexion but with strength and stability during extension.
The beneficial effect of allowing for external rotation of the femoral implant component relative to the tibial implant component, such as those illustrated in
A medial relief thus reduces the rotational constraint of a post but may also reduce the valgus constraint provided by the post. This tradeoff between rotational constraint and valgus constraint may be adequate for a patient whose native anatomy provides sufficient valgus constraint on its own, but may lead to complications if the patient's anatomy does not provide such support. In cases where the anatomy is weak against valgus motion but strong against varus motion, the post relief may be disposed on the posterior-lateral corner of a post, such as post 502, rather than the anteromedial corner. Such a relief would allow the posterior-lateral corner of the post to clear a box wall of a femoral component, allowing for the same rotation shown in
The lateral box wall 706 of the femoral component 700 interacts with the post 502 to provide constraint that resists the rotation of the femoral component 700 in the direction of arrow 702. As shown, the box wall 706 contacts the lateral side 512 of the post 502 at a superior corner 514. Because the relief 506 is disposed on the medial side 516 of the post 502, and not on the lateral side 512, the lateral side 512 provides constraint against the varus rotation similar to that provided by standard posterior stabilizing post. In particular, the constraint of the post 502 limits the varus rotation to a degree 708 shown between the lateral side 512 and the box wall 706.
As a comparison to the varus constraint provided by insert 500,
On the medial side of the insert 500, the femoral component 700 contacts the medial side of the post 502 at an inferior portion 516 of the medial side of the post, as shown in
During a valgus rotation of a femoral component 700 relative to the two inserts 500 and 550, the relief 506 causes differing constraint between the two inserts, as shown in
In contrast to the insert 500, the insert 550, shown in
Variations and modifications will occur to those of skill in the art after reviewing this disclosure. The disclosed features may be implemented, in any combination and sub combinations (including multiple dependent combinations and sub-combinations), with one or more other features described herein. The various features described or illustrated above, including any components thereof, may be combined or integrated in other systems. Moreover, certain features may be omitted or not implemented. Examples of changes, substitutions, and alterations are ascertainable by one skilled in the art and could be made without departing from the scope of the information disclosed herein. All references cited herein are incorporated by reference in their entirety and made part of this application.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3852830 | Marmor | Dec 1974 | A |
3878566 | Bechtol | Apr 1975 | A |
4193140 | Treace | Mar 1980 | A |
4731084 | Dunn et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4770659 | Kendall | Sep 1988 | A |
4770661 | Oh | Sep 1988 | A |
4790850 | Dunn et al. | Dec 1988 | A |
4795471 | Oh | Jan 1989 | A |
4846841 | Oh | Jul 1989 | A |
4932972 | Dunn et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4950298 | Gustilo | Aug 1990 | A |
4969895 | McLoed et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
5047058 | Roberts et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5053037 | Lackey | Oct 1991 | A |
5100408 | Lackey | Mar 1992 | A |
5203807 | Evans et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5282803 | Lackey | Feb 1994 | A |
5312411 | Steele et al. | May 1994 | A |
5358529 | Davidson | Oct 1994 | A |
5417693 | Sowden et al. | May 1995 | A |
5417694 | Marik | May 1995 | A |
5480444 | Incavo et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5514140 | Lackey | May 1996 | A |
5549688 | Ries et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5560096 | Stephens | Oct 1996 | A |
5569261 | Marik et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5575039 | Leifeld et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5575793 | Carls et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5593449 | Roberson | Jan 1997 | A |
5597379 | Haines et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5609641 | Johnson et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5609642 | Johnson et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5628749 | Vendrely et al. | May 1997 | A |
5667511 | Vendrely et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5683396 | Roberson et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5683397 | Carls et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5683398 | Carls et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5683469 | Johnson et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5683470 | Johnson et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5683471 | Incavo et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5693056 | Carls et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702459 | Hummer et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702460 | Carls et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702463 | Pothier et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5702464 | Lackey et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5720752 | Elliott et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5755804 | Schmotzer et al. | May 1998 | A |
5766200 | Mazurek et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5810829 | Elliott et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5824105 | Ries et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5879393 | Whiteside et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5954770 | Schmotzer et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
6123728 | Brosnahan et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6165221 | Schmotzer | Dec 2000 | A |
6258127 | Schmotzer | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6325828 | Dennis et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6364911 | Schmotzer et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6428577 | Evans et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6554837 | Hauri et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6626913 | McKinnon et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6645251 | Salehi et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6660039 | Evans et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6770098 | Hauri et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6953479 | Carson et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6969393 | Pinczewski et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6974481 | Carson | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6986791 | Metzger | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7048741 | Swanson | May 2006 | B2 |
7101401 | Brack | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7306609 | Schmotzer et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7326252 | Otto et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7344541 | Haines et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7371240 | Pinczewski et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7572292 | Crabtree et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7585328 | Haas | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7604639 | Swanson | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7662156 | Carson | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7682362 | Dees | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7794467 | McGinley et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7992771 | Yamamoto | Aug 2011 | B2 |
20080119940 | Otto et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20100312351 | Belcher | Dec 2010 | A1 |
20110125279 | Lipman et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20120197409 | McKinnon et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |