The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:264-270.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E-00345
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Lotke, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Lotke, P. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Surgical Techniques
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Stiffness After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Charles L. Nelson, MD1, Jane Kim, BA1 and Paul A. Lotke, MD1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 2 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail address for C.L. Nelson: charles.nelson{at}uphs.upenn.edu. E-mail address for J. Kim: jane_kim73{at}hotmail.com. E-mail address for P.A. Lotke: paul.lotke{at}uphs.upenn.edu

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The original scientific article in which the surgical technique was presented was published in JBJS Vol. 86-A, pp. 1479-1484, July 2004

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

The line drawings in this article are the work of Jennifer Fairman (jfairman{at}fairmanstudios.com).

BACKGROUND:

Stiffness is an uncommon but disabling problem after total knee arthroplasty. The prevalence of stiffness after knee replacement has not been well defined in the literature. In addition, the outcomes of revision surgery for a stiff knee following arthroplasty have not been evaluated in a large series of patients, to our knowledge. The purposes of this study were to define the prevalence of stiffness after primary total knee arthroplasty and to evaluate the efficacy of revision surgery for treatment of the stiffness.

METHODS:

We defined a stiff knee as one having a flexion contracture of 15° and/or <75° of flexion. Two separate groups were evaluated. First, the results of 1000 consecutive primary total knee replacements were reviewed to determine the prevalence of stiffness. Second, the results of fifty-six revisions performed because of stiffness, sometimes associated with pain or component loosening, after primary total knee arthroplasty were evaluated.

RESULTS:

The prevalence of stiffness was 1.3%, at an average of thirty-two months postoperatively. The patients with a stiff knee had had significantly less preoperative extension and flexion than did those without a stiff knee (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in age, gender, implant design, diagnosis, or the need for lateral release between the patients with and without stiffness. The second cohort, of knees revised because of stiffness, were followed for an average of forty-three months. The mean Knee Society score improved from 38.5 points preoperatively to 86.7 points at the time of follow-up; the mean Knee Society function score, from 40.0 to 58.4 points; and the mean Knee Society pain score, from 15.0 to 46.9 points. The mean flexion contracture decreased from 11.3° to 3.2°, the mean flexion improved from 65.8° to 85.4°, and the mean arc of motion improved from 54.6° to 82.2°. The arc of motion improved in 93% of the knees, and flexion increased in 80%. Extension improved in 63%, and it remained unchanged in 30%.

CONCLUSIONS:

The prevalence of stiffness in our series of 1000 primary knee arthroplasties was 1.3%. Revision surgery was a satisfactory treatment option for stiffness, as the Knee Society scores improved, the flexion contractures diminished, and 93% of the knees had an increased arc of motion. However, the results suggest that the benefits are modest.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. J. Archibeck and R. E. White Jr.
What's New in Adult Reconstructive Knee Surgery
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., July 1, 2006; 88(7): 1677 - 1686.
[Full Text] [PDF]