Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 7/2014

01-07-2014 | Knee

Preoperative flexion does not influence postoperative flexion after rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty

Authors: Robert D. Russell, Michael H. Huo, Leslie de Jong, Richard E. Jones

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 7/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Preoperative range of motion (ROM) has been regarded as one of the most important factors in predicting postoperative ROM following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Mobile-bearing TKA designs have been suggested to possibly improve the knee kinematics compared to fixed-bearing designs. The purpose of this study was to examine the difference in postoperative flexion as a function of preoperative flexion in a consecutive series of TKAs done using a posterior-stabilized rotating-platform prosthesis.

Methods

ROM was assessed in 153 consecutive TKAs done using a rotating-platform posterior cruciate-substituting design. Patients were divided into two groups based on their preoperative ROM (Group 1 < 95°, Group 2 > 95°). The Knee Society Score (KSS) and ROM were assessed preoperatively, 3 months and 12 months postoperatively.

Results

There was no difference in flexion 12 months after surgery between groups (mean 120° and 123°, respectively. n.s.). After 3 month follow-up, no increase in ROM was experienced by either group. Patients in Group 1 experienced significantly greater increases in both ROM (p < 0.001) and KSS (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the KSS at 12 months after surgery between groups.

Conclusion

In this series of patients undergoing TKA with a rotating-platform prosthesis, the preoperative ROM was not predictive of the postoperative ROM. Patients with stiff knees preoperatively may benefit from a mobile-bearing design prosthesis.

Level of evidence

Case–control study, Level III.
Literature
1.
Anouchi YS, McShane M, Kelly F Jr, Elting J, Stiehl J (1996) Range of motion in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:87–92PubMedCrossRef
2.
Ball ST, Sanchez HB, Mahoney OM, Schmalzried TP (2011) Fixed versus rotating platform total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. J Arthroplasty 26(4):531–536PubMedCrossRef
3.
Breugem SJ, Sierevelt IN, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Schaap GR, van Dijk CN (2008) Less anterior knee pain with a mobile-bearing prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1959–1965PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
4.
Delport HP, Banks SA, De Schepper J, Bellemans J (2006) A kinematic comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(8):1016–1021PubMedCrossRef
5.
Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Walker SA, Dennis KN (1998) Range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: the effect of implant design and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty 13(7):748–752PubMedCrossRef
6.
Dennis DA, Komistek RD (2006) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: design factors in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:70–77PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12PubMed
8.
Gatha NM, Clarke HD, Fuchs R, Scuderi GR, Insall JN (2004) Factors affecting postoperative range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 17(4):196–202PubMed
9.
Hamelynck KJ (2006) The history of mobile-bearing total knee replacement systems. Orthopedics 29(9 Suppl):S7–S12PubMed
10.
Harrington MA, Hopkinson WJ, Hsu P, Manion L (2009) Fixed- vs mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: does it make a difference?—a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24(6 Suppl):24–27PubMedCrossRef
11.
Hartman CW, Ting NT, Moric M, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Della Valle CJ (2010) Revision total knee arthroplasty for stiffness. J Arthroplasty 25(6 Suppl):62–66PubMedCrossRef
12.
Harvey IA, Barry K, Kirby SP, Johnson R, Elloy MA (1993) Factors affecting the range of movement of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75(6):950–955PubMed
13.
Hooper G, Rothwell A, Frampton C (2009) The low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a prospective study with a minimum follow-up of ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(1):58–63PubMedCrossRef
14.
Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Takeda M, Sato J, Toyabe S (2011) Prediction of range of motion 2 years after mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: PCL-retaining versus PCL-sacrificing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(12):2002–2008PubMedCrossRef
15.
Jones RE (2006) High-flexion rotating-platform knees: rationale, design, and patient selection. Orthopedics 29(9 Suppl):S76–S79PubMed
16.
Kotani A, Yonekura A, Bourne RB (2005) Factors influencing range of motion after contemporary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(7):850–856PubMedCrossRef
17.
Matsuda S, Mizu-uchi H, Fukagawa S, Miura H, Okazaki K, Matsuda H, Iwamoto Y (2010) Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(10):1311–1316PubMedCrossRef
18.
Mont MA (2012) No difference in results of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty in a prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(12):1–3
19.
Parsley BS, Engh GA, Dwyer KA (1992) Preoperative flexion. Does it influence postoperative flexion after posterior-cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 275:204–210PubMed
20.
Post ZD, Matar WY, van de Leur T, Grossman EL, Austin MS (2010) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: better than a fixed-bearing? J Arthroplasty 25(6):998–1003PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ranawat AS, Gupta SK, Ranawat CS (2006) The P.F.C. sigma RP-F total knee arthroplasty: designed for improved performance. Orthopedics 29(9 Suppl):S28–S29PubMed
22.
Ranawat CS, Komistek RD, Rodriguez JA, Dennis DA, Anderle M (2004) In vivo kinematics for fixed and mobile-bearing posterior stabilized knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 418:184–190PubMedCrossRef
23.
Ritter MA, Campbell ED (1987) Effect of range of motion on the success of a total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2(2):95–97PubMedCrossRef
24.
Ritter MA, Stringer EA (1979) Predictive range of motion after total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 143:115–119PubMed
25.
Ritter MA, Harty LD, Davis KE, Meding JB, Berend ME (2003) Predicting range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Clustering, log-linear regression, and regression tree analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(7):1278–1285PubMed
26.
Sawaguchi N, Majima T, Ishigaki T, Mori N, Terashima T, Minami A (2010) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty improves patellar tracking and patellofemoral contact stress: in vivo measurements in the same patients. J Arthroplasty 25(6):920–925PubMedCrossRef
27.
Schurman DJ, Matityahu A, Goodman SB, Maloney W, Woolson S, Shi H, Bloch DA (1998) Prediction of postoperative knee flexion in Insall-Burstein II total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 353:175–184PubMedCrossRef
28.
Smith H, Jan M, Mahomed NN, Davey JR, Gandhi R (2011) Meta-analysis and systematic review of clinical outcomes comparing mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1205–1213PubMedCrossRef
29.
Turki HW, Trick L (2011) Complete 180° rotatory dislocation in a mobile-bearing knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 26(4):666. e1–666. e3CrossRef
30.
Winemaker M, Rahman WA, Petruccelli D, de Beer J (2012) Preoperative knee stiffness and total knee arthroplasty outcomes. J Arthroplasty 27(8):1437–1441PubMedCrossRef
31.
Woolson ST, Epstein NJ, Huddleston JI (2011) Long-term comparison of mobile-bearing vs filed-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1219–1223PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Preoperative flexion does not influence postoperative flexion after rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty
Authors
Robert D. Russell
Michael H. Huo
Leslie de Jong
Richard E. Jones
Publication date
01-07-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 7/2014
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2378-2

Other articles of this Issue 7/2014

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 7/2014 Go to the issue

Knee

Partial restoration of knee kinematics in severe valgus deformity using the medial-pivot total knee arthroplasty

Knee

Physical activity after distal femur osteotomy for the treatment of lateral compartment knee osteoarthritis

Knee

Tibial tunnel placement in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

Editorial

Where are we? What do we need?

Knee

A systematic review of postural control during single-leg stance in patients with untreated anterior cruciate ligament injury

Knee

Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid for the reduction in joint adhesion formation in a rabbit model of knee injury