The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:182-188.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00588
© 2006 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 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 arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Berland, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Berland, K.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Why Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Substituting Total Knee Replacements Have Similar Ranges of Motion

THE IMPORTANCE OF POSTERIOR CONDYLAR OFFSET AND CLEANOUT OF POSTERIOR CONDYLAR SPACE

Wayne M. Goldstein, MD, David J. Raab, MD, Thomas F. Gleason, MD, Jill Jasperson Branson, RN, BSN and Kimberly Berland, CST, FA

Corresponding author:
Jill Jasperson Branson, RN, BSN
9000 Waukegan Road, Morton Grove, IL 60053

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Introduction
 
Fluoroscopic studies of cruciate-retaining total knee replacements have shown paradoxical anterior slide in flexion1. Without rollback, the tibial component may impinge earlier on the posterior part of the femur. Cruciate-retaining and cruciate-sacrificing total knee replacements have been reported to have similar ranges of motion2. It is possible that the position and function of the tibial post that substitutes for the posterior cruciate ligament in the cruciate-sacrificing implant may not optimize rollback enough to create a clinically important difference between these two designs. Recent newer high-flexion knee designs have moved the post posteriorly and extended the available posterior condylar surface proximally for greater articulation in flexion. These designs may demonstrate a larger flexion difference in the future. With modern implant designs, which began with the cementless porous-coated cruciate-retaining components, less posterior condylar bone was resected than was the case with early condylar implants. Removal of less bone was a . . . [Full Text of this Article]


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