Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prediction of range of motion 2 years after mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: PCL-retaining versus PCL-sacrificing

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

This study evaluated the changes in the range of motion (ROM) with time postoperatively.

Method

The pre- and intraoperative ROM was compared with the ROM 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively to clarify the effects of posterior cruciate ligament–retaining (PCLR) and posterior cruciate ligament–sacrificing (PCLS) prostheses on the ROM. The changes in the ROM in PCLR (n = 57) and PCLS (n = 51) mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties for osteoarthritis patients for whom complete data were available were examined.

Results

No significant difference was seen between the two prostheses at any time point. Nevertheless, the ROM 24 months after PCLR and PCLS prostheses could be predicted statistically from the ROM after 6 and 3 months, respectively.

Conclusion

This study showed the effects of retention of the PCL and the degree of its functional recovery on postoperative ROM for the two prostheses.

Level of Evidence

Systematic review, Level II.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arima J, Whiteside LA, Martin JW, Miura H, White SE, McCarthy DS (1998) Effect of partial release of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 353:194–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moemans A (2002) Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep flexion in total knee arthroplasty: influence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:50–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Buechel FF Sr (2002) Long-term follow-up after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:40–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chaudhary R, Beaupré LA, Johnston DWC (2003) 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. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2579–2586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Walker SA, Dennis KN (1998) Range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: the effect of implant design and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty 13:748–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Figgie HE, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller HS, Gordon NH (1986) The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:1035–1040

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gatha NM, Clarke HD, Fuchs R, Scruderi GR, Insall JN (2004) Factors affecting postoperative range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 17:196–202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Girgis FG, Marshall JL, Al Monejem ARS (1975) The cruciate of the knee joint: anatomical, function and experimental analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 106:216–231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hagena FW, Hofmann GO, Mittelmeier T, Wasmer G, Bergmann M (1989) The cruciate ligament in knee replacement. Int Orthop 13:13–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Insall JN, Easley ME (2001) Surgical techniques and instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. In: Insall JN, Scott WN (eds) Surgery of the knee, vol 2. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 1553–1620

    Google Scholar 

  11. Insall JN, Hood RW, Flawn LB, Sullivan DJ (1983) The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis. A five to nine-year follow-up of the first one hundred consecutive replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:619–628

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ishii Y, Matsuda Y, Sakata S, Onda N, Omori G (2005) Primary total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis I total knee prosthesis: a 5- to 10-year follow-up study. Knee 12:341–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Matsuda Y, Takeda M, Kiga H, Toyabe SI (2008) Range of motion during the perioperative period in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:795–799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kawamura H, Bourne RB (2001) Factors affecting range of flexion after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 6:248–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim YH, Choi Y, Kwon OR, Kim JS (2009) 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 91:753–760

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim YH, Sohn KS, Kim JS (2005) Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1470–1475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kotani A, Yonekura A, Bourne RB (2005) Factors influencing range of motion after contemporary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:850–856

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar PJ, McPherson EJ, Dorr LD, Wan Z, Baldwin K (1996) Rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. A comparison of two rehabilitation techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:93–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee DC, Kim DH, Scott RD, Suthers K (1998) Intraoperative flexion against gravity as an indication of ultimate range of motion in individual cases after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:500–503

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Maloney WJ, Schurman DJ (1992) The effect of implant design on range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Total condylar versus posterior stabilized total condylar designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res 278:147–152

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsuda Y, Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Ishii R, Kiga H (2005) Varus-valgus balance affects the range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:804–808

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Mauerhan DR, Mokris JG, Ly A, Kiebzak GM (1998) Relationship between length of stay and manipulation rate after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 13:896–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Parsley BS, Engh GA, Dwyer KA (1992) Preoperative flexion. Does it influence postoperative flexion after posterior-cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 275:204–210

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ranawat CS, Ranawat AS, Mehta A (2003) Total knee arthroplasty rehabilitation protocol. What makes the difference? J Arthroplasty 18(Suppl 1):27–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ritter MA, Campbell ED (1987) Effect of range of motion on the success of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2:95–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ritter MA, Harty LD, Davis KE, Meding JB, Berend ME (2003) Predicting range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1278–1285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schurman DJ, Parker JN, Orstein D (1985) Total condylar knee replacement. A study of factors influencing range of motion as late as two years after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 67:1006–1014

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Schurman DJ, Rojer DE (2005) Total knee arthroplasty—range of motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:132–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Seon JK, Song EK, Lee JY (2005) Comparison of range of motion of high-flexion prosthesis and mobile-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedics 28(Suppl):1247–1250

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stiehl JB, Voorhorst PE, Keblish P, Sorrells RB (1997) Comparison of range of motion after posterior cruciate ligament retention or sacrifice with a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. Am J Knee Surg 10:216–220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ishii Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Clinic, 1089 Shimo-Oshi, Gyoda, Saitama, 361-0037, Japan

    Yoshinori Ishii, Hideo Noguchi, Mitsuhiro Takeda, Junko Sato & Shin-ichi Toyabe

  2. Division of Information Science and Biostatistics, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 1 Asahimachi Dori Niigata, Niigata, 951-8520, Japan

    Shin-ichi Toyabe

Authors
  1. Yoshinori Ishii
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hideo Noguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mitsuhiro Takeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Junko Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shin-ichi Toyabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoshinori Ishii.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ishii, Y., Noguchi, H., Takeda, M. et al. Prediction of range of motion 2 years after mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: PCL-retaining versus PCL-sacrificing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19, 2002–2008 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1395-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1395-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation