The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2008;90:2579-2586.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00995
© 2008 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activity for this article:
 CME 4: October, November, December 2008 (publication date January 5, 2009; ...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
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 E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chaudhary, R.
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, D.W.C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Chaudhary, R.
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, D.W.C.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Hip
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Knee Range of Motion During the First Two Years After Use of Posterior Cruciate-Stabilizing or Posterior Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Prostheses

A Randomized Clinical Trial

R. Chaudhary, MD1, L.A. Beaupré, PhD, PT1 and D.W.C. Johnston, MD, FRCS(C)1

1 University of Alberta, Capital Health, 1F1.52 WMC, 8440-112 Street, Edmonton, AB T6G 2B7, Canada. E-mail address for L.A. Beaupré: lauren.beaupre{at}capitalhealth.ca

Investigation performed at the University of Alberta, and Capital Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from Stryker Canada. In addition, one or more of the authors or a member of his or her immediate family received, in any one year, payments or other benefits of less than $10,000 or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Stryker Canada). No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM/DVD (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM or DVD).

Background: The impact of posterior cruciate ligament-substituting and posterior cruciate ligament-retaining devices on the range of motion of the knee following primary total knee arthroplasty is unclear. The primary objective of our study was to compare the range of motion of the knee over the first two postoperative years between subjects who had received the ligament-substituting design and those who had received the ligament-retaining design. Secondarily, pain, function, and health-related quality of life were compared between the two groups.

Methods: We undertook a prospective randomized study of 100 patients with noninflammatory osteoarthritis who were undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Patients were randomized at the time of surgery to receive one of the two study prosthesis designs. They were evaluated preoperatively, at the time of hospital discharge, at three months postoperatively, and at up to two years postoperatively by a physical therapist who was blinded to the group allocation. Active knee flexion and extension, measured with a goniometer, were the primary outcome measures. Self-reported pain, function, and health-related quality of life were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36). Complications and revision rates were determined through hospital record review and at each patient evaluation.

Results: Eighty percent (seventy-eight) of the ninety-eight available patients returned for the final assessment. At two years postoperatively, the mean difference between the groups with regard to knee flexion was 0.03° (95% confidence interval, –5.9° to 6.0°) and the mean difference in knee extension was 1.0° (95% confidence interval, –0.36° to 2.4°). Ninety-one (93%) of the ninety-eight available patients completed questionnaires at the time of the final assessment. The two treatment groups had similar pain, function, and quality-of-life scores and complication rates. One subject in the cruciate-retaining group required revision, secondary to a deep joint infection, and one subject in the cruciate-substituting group required manipulation to address poor knee flexion.

Conclusions: Overall, the two treatment groups had a similar range of motion of the knee over the initial two-year postoperative time period. A satisfactory range of motion was achieved by three months postoperatively and was maintained at the final assessment.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


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