The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2009;91:1874-1881.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00769
© 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 3: July, August, September 2009 (publication date October 5, 2009; expi...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: View responses
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kim, Y.-H.
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J.-S.
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?

Range of Motion of Standard and High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Prostheses*

A Prospective Randomized Study

Young-Hoo Kim, MD1, Yoowang Choi, MD1 and Jun-Shik Kim, MD1

1 The Joint Replacement Center of Korea at Ewha Womans University MokDong Hospital, 911-1, MokDong, YangCheon-Gu, 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 at Ewha Womans University MokDong Hospital, Seoul, South Korea

* Read in part at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 26, 2009.

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: The main goals of total knee arthroplasty are pain relief and improvement in function and the range of motion. The purpose of this study was to compare the ranges of motion of the knees of patients treated with a standard posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in the other.

Methods: Fifty-four patients (mean age, 69.7 years) received a standard posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. Five patients were men, and forty-nine were women. At a mean of three years postoperatively, the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically with the knee-rating systems of the Knee Society and the Hospital for Special Surgery and with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score.

Results: The mean postoperative Knee Society and Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores were 93.7 and 89 points, respectively, for the knees with a standard posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis, and they were 93.9 and 90 points, respectively, for the knees with a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis. The mean postoperative WOMAC score was 22 points. Postoperatively, the mean ranges of motion without and with weight-bearing were 131° (range, 90° to 150°) and 115° (range, 75° to 145°), respectively, in the knees with a standard prosthesis and 133° (range, 90° to 150°) and 118° (range, 75° to 145°), respectively, in those with a high-flexion prosthesis. Patient satisfaction and radiographic results were similar in the two groups. No knee had aseptic loosening, revision, or osteolysis.

Conclusions: After a minimum duration of follow-up of three years, we found no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the range of knee motion or the clinical or radiographic parameters.

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?


Letters to the Editor:

Read all Letters to the Editor

Range of Motion of Standard and High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Prostheses
Ajay Malviya
JBJS Online, 19 Aug 2009 [Full text]
Dr. Kim and colleagues respond to Mr. Malviya
Young-Hoo Kim, MD, et al.
JBJS Online, 19 Aug 2009 [Full text]