The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2009;91:753-760.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00805
© 2009 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 2: April, May, June 2009 (publication date July 6, 2009; expiration dat...
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 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 arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kim, Y.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J.-S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kim, Y.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J.-S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Knee
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?

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

Young-Hoo Kim, MD1, Yoowang Choi, MD1, Oh-Ryong Kwon, MD1 and Jun-Shik Kim, MD1

1 The Joint Replacement Center of Korea at Ewha Womans University, MokDong Hospital 911-1, MokDong, YangCheon-Ku, Seoul, 158-710 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 School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

Disclosure: The authors did not receive any outside funding or grants in support of their research for or preparation of this work. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received 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, 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: Although the design features of the high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining and high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prostheses reportedly improve the range of knee motion, a clinical comparison of both systems with regard to range of motion has not been reported, to our knowledge. The purpose of the present study was to compare the range of motion and functional outcome in knees receiving either a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining or a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prosthesis.

Methods: Two hundred and fifty patients (mean age, 71.6 years) received a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. Ten patients were men, and 240 were women. At the time of each follow-up (minimum duration of follow-up, two years; mean, 2.3 years), the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically with use of the knee-rating systems of the Knee Society and the Hospital for Special Surgery. In addition, each patient completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaire. Non-weight-bearing and weight-bearing ranges of knee motion were determined in both groups.

Results: The mean postoperative Knee Society knee score was 94 points for the knees treated with a high-flexion cruciate-retaining prosthesis and 95 points for those treated with a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis. The mean postoperative Hospital for Special Surgery knee score was 90 points for the knees that had been treated with a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis and 91 points for those that had been treated with the high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis. At the time of the latest follow-up, the knees that had been treated with a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis had a mean non-weight-bearing range of motion of 133° and a mean weight-bearing range of motion of 118°. The knees that had been treated with a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting prosthesis had a mean non-weight-bearing range of motion of 135° and a mean weight-bearing range of motion of 122°. No knee had aseptic loosening, revision, or osteolysis.

Conclusions: After a minimum duration of follow-up of two years, there was no difference in range of motion or clinical and radiographic results between knees that had received a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis and those that had received a high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prosthesis.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instruction 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?