Influence of Menisci on Tibiofemoral Contact Mechanics in Human Knees: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: Menisci transfer axial loads, while increasing the load-bearing tibiofemoral contact area and decreasing tibiofemoral contact pressure (CP). Numerous clinical and experimental studies agree that an increased CP is one predominant indicator for post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) of the knee joint. However, due to the immense variability in experimental test setups and wide range of treatment possibilities in meniscus surgery, it is difficult to objectively assess their impact on the CP determination, which is clearly crucial for knee joint health. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to investigate the influence of different meniscal injuries and their associated surgical treatments on the CP. Secondly, the influence of different test setups on CP measurements is assessed. On the basis of these results, we established the basis for recommendations for future investigations with the aim to determine CPs under different meniscal states. Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were identified through a systematic literature search in Cochrane, PubMed and Web of Science databases. Literature was searched through pre-defined keywords and medical subject headings. Results: This review indicates a significant increase of up to 235% in peak CP when comparing healthy joints and intact menisci with impaired knee joints, injured or resected menisci. In addition, different test setups were indicated to have major influences on CP: The variety of test setups ranged from standard material testing machines, including customized setups via horizontal and vertical knee joint simulators, through to robotic systems. Differences in applied axial knee joint loads ranged from 0 N up to 2,700 N and resulted unsurprisingly in significantly different peak CPs of between 0.1 and 12.06 MPa. Conclusion: It was shown that untreated traumatic meniscal tears result in an increased CP. Surgical repair intervention were able to restore the CP comparable to the healthy, native condition. Test setup differences and particularly axial joint loading variability also led to major CP differences. In conclusion, when focusing on CP measurements in the knee joint, transparent and traceable in vitro testing conditions are essential to allow researchers to make a direct comparison between future biomechanical investigations.

Forces at the Anterior Meniscus Attachments Strongly Increase Under Dynamic Knee Joint Loading.

BACKGROUND: The anatomic appearance and biomechanical and clinical importance of the anterior meniscus roots are well described. However, little is known about the loads that act on these attachment structures under physiological joint loads and movements. HYPOTHESES: As compared with uniaxial loading conditions under static knee flexion angles or at very low flexion-extension speeds, more realistic continuous movement simulations in combination with physiological muscle force simulations lead to significantly higher anterior meniscus attachment forces. This increase is even more pronounced in combination with a longitudinal meniscal tear or after total medial meniscectomy. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A validated Oxford Rig-like knee simulator was used to perform a slow squat, a fast squat, and jump landing maneuvers on 9 cadaveric human knee joints, with and without muscle force simulation. The strains in the anterior medial and lateral meniscal periphery and the respective attachments were determined in 3 states: intact meniscus, medial longitudinal tear, and total medial meniscectomy. To determine the attachment forces, a subsequent in situ tensile test was performed. RESULTS: Muscle force simulation resulted in a significant strain increase at the anterior meniscus attachments of up to 308% (P < .038) and the anterior meniscal periphery of up to 276%. This corresponded to significantly increased forces (P < .038) acting in the anteromedial attachment with a maximum force of 140 N, as determined during the jump landing simulation. Meniscus attachment strains and forces were significantly influenced (P = .008) by the longitudinal tear and meniscectomy during the drop jump simulation. CONCLUSION: Medial and lateral anterior meniscus attachment strains and forces were significantly increased with physiological muscle force simulation, corroborating our hypothesis. Therefore, in vitro tests applying uniaxial loads combined with static knee flexion angles or very low flexion-extension speeds appear to underestimate meniscus attachment forces. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The data of the present study might help to optimize the anchoring of meniscal allografts and artificial meniscal substitutes to the tibial plateau. Furthermore, this is the first in vitro study to indicate reasonable minimum stability requirements regarding the reattachment of torn anterior meniscus roots.

German Society of Biomechanics (DGfB) Young Investigator Award 2019: Proof-of-Concept of a Novel Knee Joint Simulator Allowing Rapid Motions at Physiological Muscle and Ground Reaction Forces.

The in vitro determination of realistic loads acting in knee ligaments, articular cartilage, menisci and their attachments during daily activities require the creation of physiological muscle forces, ground reaction force and unconstrained kinematics. However, no in vitro test setup is currently available that is able to simulate such physiological loads during squatting and jump landing exercises. Therefore, a novel knee joint simulator allowing such physiological loads in combination with realistic, rapid movements is presented. To gain realistic joint positions and muscle forces serving as input parameters for the simulator, a combined in vivo motion analysis and inverse dynamics (MAID) study was undertaken with 11 volunteers performing squatting and jump landing exercises. Subsequently, an in vitro study using nine human knee joint specimens was conducted to prove the functionality of the simulator. To do so, slow squatting without muscle force simulation representing quasi-static loading conditions and slow squatting and jump landing with physiological muscle force simulation were carried out. During all tests ground reaction force, tibiofemoral contact pressure, and tibial rotation characteristics were simultaneously recorded. The simulated muscle forces obtained were in good correlation (0.48 ≤ R ≤ 0.92) with those from the in vivo MAID study. The resulting vertical ground reaction force showed a correlation of R = 0.93. On the basis of the target parameters of ground reaction force, tibiofemoral contact pressure and tibial rotation, it could be concluded that the knee joint load was loaded physiologically. Therefore, this is the first in vitro knee joint simulator allowing squatting and jump landing exercises in combination with physiological muscle forces that finally result in realistic ground reaction forces and physiological joint loading conditions.

The effect of knee brace misalignment on the anterior cruciate ligament: An experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Protective knee braces are used for rehabilitation or prevention. Due to poor patient compliance or slippage, the brace might be misaligned with the knee axis. OBJECTIVES: Does a misaligned knee brace stress the anterior cruciate ligament? STUDY DESIGN: It is an experimental study. METHODS: A strain sensor was implanted on the anterior cruciate ligament in eight limbs. The limbs were mounted in a knee simulator, muscle forces were applied and a cyclic motion from 10° to 60° flexion was performed under three conditions: unbraced, braced and with a misaligned brace. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures were anterior cruciate ligament strain and three-dimensional kinematics of the knee joint. RESULTS: The correctly aligned brace significantly reduced the anterior cruciate ligament strain at 10° compared to the unbraced condition from 0% to -1.54% (standard deviation = 1.4). The misaligned brace neutralised the effect of bracing to -0.06% (standard deviation = 1.1) anterior cruciate ligament strain. At 60° flexion angle, bracing had no statistically significant effect on the anterior cruciate ligament strain compared to the unbraced knee: -2.58% (standard deviation = 0.8) versus -1.64% (standard deviation = 1.0). The anterior cruciate ligament in the misaligned braced knee at 60° flexion with a strain of -1.1% (standard deviation = 0.9) was significantly more stressed than in the correctly aligned condition. An effect of bracing on knee kinematics was not detected. CONCLUSION: A correctly aligned knee brace reduced anterior cruciate ligament strain. By contrast, a misaligned brace tended to increase the anterior cruciate ligament strain compared to the unbraced knee. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The correct alignment of the brace was identified as a key factor decisively influencing the effectiveness of bracing.

Do Prophylactic Knee Braces Protect the Knee Against Impacts or Tibial Moments? An In Vitro Multisensory Study.

BACKGROUND: Knee braces are prescribed by physicians to protect the knee from various loading conditions during sports or after surgery, even though the effect of bracing for various loading scenarios remains unclear. PURPOSE: To extensively investigate whether bracing protects the knee against impacts from the lateral, medial, anterior, or posterior directions at different heights as well as against tibial moments. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight limb specimens were exposed to (1) subcritical impacts from the medial, lateral, anterior, and posterior directions at 3 heights (center of the joint line and 100 mm inferior and superior) and (2) internal/external torques. Using a prophylactic brace, both scenarios were conducted under braced and unbraced conditions with moderate muscle loads and intact soft tissue. The change in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) strain, joint acceleration in the tibial and femoral bones (for impacts only), and joint kinematics were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Bracing reduced joint acceleration for medial and lateral center impacts. The ACL strain change was decreased for medial superior impacts and increased for anterior inferior impacts. Impacts from the posterior direction had substantially less effect on the ACL strain change and joint acceleration than anterior impacts. Bracing had no effect on the ACL strain change or kinematics under internal or external moments. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the effect of bracing during impacts depends on the direction and height of the impact and is partly positive, negative, or neutral and that soft tissue absorbs impact energy. An effect during internal or external torque was not detected. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bracing in contact sports with many lateral or medial impacts might be beneficial, whereas athletes who play sports with rotational moments on the knee or anterior impacts may be safer without a brace.