The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:1470-1475.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.D.02707
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Range of Motion of Standard and High-Flexion Posterior Stabilized Total Knee Prostheses
A Prospective, Randomized Study
Young-Hoo Kim, MD1,
Keun-Soo Sohn, MD1 and
Jun-Shik Kim, MD1
1 The Joint Replacement Center of Korea at Ewha Womans University Dong Dae Mun
Hospital, 70, ChongRo 6-Ga, ChongRo-Gu, Seoul 110-783, South Korea. E-mail
address for Y.-H. Kim:
younghookim{at}ewha.ac.kr
Investigation performed at The Joint Replacement Center of Korea, Ewha
Womans University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
Background: The restoration of posterior femoral translation has
been shown to be an important factor in enhancing knee flexion after total
knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the ranges of
motion associated with standard and high-flexion posterior stabilized total
knee prostheses in patients managed with simultaneous bilateral total knee
arthroplasty.
Methods: Fifty patients (mean age, sixty-eight years) received a
standard fixed-bearing knee prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion
fixed-bearing knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. Two patients were
men, and forty-eight were women. At a mean of 2.1 years postoperatively, the
patients were assessed clinically and radiographically with use of the
knee-rating systems of the Knee Society and The Hospital for Special
Surgery.
Results: The mean postoperative Hospital for Special Surgery knee
score was 90 points for the knees treated with the standard fixed-bearing
prosthesis and 89.4 points for those treated with the high-flexion prosthesis.
At the time of the final follow-up, the knees with the standard prosthesis had
a mean range of motion of 135.8° (range, 105° to 150°) and those
with a high-flexion prosthesis had a mean range of motion of 138.6°
(range, 105° to 150°) (p = 0.41). No knee had aseptic loosening,
revision, or osteolysis.
Conclusions: After a minimum duration of follow-up of two years, we
found no significant differences between the groups with regard to range of
motion or clinical and radiographic parameters, except for posterior femoral
condylar offset.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions
to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Facebook Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y.-H. Kim, Y. Choi, and J.-S. Kim
Range of Motion of Standard and High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Prostheses A Prospective Randomized Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
August 1, 2009;
91(8):
1874 - 1881.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Y.-H. Kim, Y. Choi, O.-R. Kwon, and J.-S. Kim
Functional Outcome and Range of Motion of High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee Prostheses. A Prospective, Randomized Study
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
April 1, 2009;
91(4):
753 - 760.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. K. Seon, S. J. Park, K. B. Lee, T. R. Yoon, M. Kozanek, and E. K. Song
Range of Motion in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Comparison of High-Flexion and Standard Cruciate-Retaining Designs
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
March 1, 2009;
91(3):
672 - 679.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
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]
|
 |
|
|