0
Scientific Articles   |    
Functional Outcome and Range of Motion of High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee ProsthesesA Prospective, Randomized Study
Young-Hoo Kim, MD1; Yoowang Choi, MD1; Oh-Ryong Kwon, MD1; 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@ewha.ac.kr
View Disclosures and Other Information
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).
Investigation performed at The Joint Replacement Center of Korea, Ewha Womans University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2009 Apr 01;91(4):753-760. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00805
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

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.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

     
    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

    References

    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe





    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Guidelines
    Results provided by:
    PubMed
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    04/16/2014
    Ohio - OhioHealth Research and Innovation Institute (OHRI)
    04/23/2014
    Massachusetts - UMass Memorial Medical Center
    02/05/2014
    Oregon - The Center - Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Care and Research