Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of range of motion after standard and high-flexion posterior stabilised total knee replacement

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the range of motion after standard version posterior stabilised TKR and high-flexion version TKR in patients receiving bilateral total knee replacement. Thirty-five patients were recruited. The range of motion of the knees was measured clinically with a goniometer in both the pre-operative period and the most recent follow-up. It was found that the pre-operative range of motion was comparable in the two groups. The average post-operative flexion was 105° ± 13° in the standard version group and 106° ± 14° in the high-flexion design group (p = 0.201, paired t-test; beta error = 0.073). A slight loss in flexion was observed in the standard version group (0.5°) as opposed to a slight gain in the high-flexion design group (2°). However, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.251, paired t-test; beta error = 0.105).

Résumé

Le but de cette étude est de comparer la mobilité du genou après prothèse totale postéro stabilisée et prothèse total type « high-flexion », tous les patients étant opérés des deux genoux dans le même temps opératoire. 35 patients ont été inclus, la mobilité des genoux a été mesurée cliniquement en pré-opératoire et au plus grand recul. La mobilité pré-opératoire a été comparable dans les deux groupes, la mobilité post opératoire a été de 105° ± 13° dans la prothèse standard contre 106°  ± 14° dans les prothèses dites « high-flexion » (p = 0.201). Une petite perte de flexion est observée dans le groupe standard (0.5°), le gain dans le groupe des prothèses dites « high-flexion » est modéré (2°). Il n’y a pas de différences significatives entre ces deux groupes (p = 0.251).

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Reference

  1. Akagi M, Nakamura T, Matsusue et al (2000) The bisurface total knee replacement: a unique design for flexion. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:1626–1633

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Argenson JA, Scuderi GR, Komistek RD et al (2005) In vivo kinematic evaluation and design considerations related to high flexion in total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech 38:277–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bin SI, Nam TS (2007) Early results of high-flex total knee arthroplasty: comparison study at 1 year after surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15:350–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chiu KY, Ng TP, Tang WM, Yau WP (2002) Review article: knee flexion after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 10:194–202

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Huang H, Su JY, Wang G (2005) The early results of high flex total knee arthroplasty: a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 20:674–679

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Li G, Most E, Sultan PG et al (2004) Knee kinematics with a high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis: an in vitro robotic experimental investigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1721–1729

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ritter MA, Harty LD, Davis KE et al (2003) Predicting range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Clustering, log-linear regression and regression tree analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1278–1285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ritter MA, Stringer HA (1979) Predictive range of motion after total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 143:115–119

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shakespeare D, Ledger M, Kinzel, V (2006) Flexion after total knee replacement. A comparison between the Medial Pivot knee and a posterior stabilised implant. Knee 13:371–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weeden SH, Schmidt R (2007) A randomized, prospective study of primary total knee components designed for increased flexion. J Arthroplasty 22:349–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Yau WP, Chiu KY, Tang WM, Ng TP (2005) Residual posterior femoral condyle osteophyte affects the flexion range after total knee replacement. Int Orthop 29:375–379

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Y. Ng.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ng, F.Y., Wong, H.L., Yau, W.P. et al. Comparison of range of motion after standard and high-flexion posterior stabilised total knee replacement. International Orthopaedics (SICO 32, 795–798 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0409-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-007-0409-7

Keywords

Navigation