Literature DB >> 23677140

Do tibiofemoral contact point and posterior condylar offset influence outcome and range of motion in a mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty?

G J P Geijsen1, P J C Heesterbeek, G van Stralen, P G Anderson, A B Wymenga.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The posterior condylar offset (PCO) and the tibiofemoral contact point (CP) have been reported as important factors that can influence range of motion and clinical outcome after total knee arthroplasty. A mobile-bearing knee implant with an anterior posterior gliding insert would in theory be more sensitive for changes in PCO and CP. For this reason, we analysed the PCO and CP and the relation with outcome and range of motion in 132 patients from a prospectively documented cohort in this type of implant.
METHODS: The prosthesis used was a posterior cruciate retaining AP gliding mobile-bearing total knee replacement (SAL II Sulzer Medica, Switzerland). In 132 knees, the pre- and postoperative PCO and postoperative CP were evaluated. Measurements were made on X-rays of the knee taken in approximately 90° of flexion and with less than 3-mm rotation of the femur condyles. The outcome parameters, range of motion (ROM) and the knee society score (KSS), for each knee were determined preoperatively and at 5-year follow-up.
RESULTS: The mean KSS improved from 91 to 161 at 5-year follow-up (p < 0.001) and the mean ROM from 102 to 108 (p < 0.05). The mean PCO difference (postoperative PCO-preoperative PCO) was--0.05 mm (SD 2.15). The CP was on average 53.9% (SD 5.5%). ROM was different between the 3 PCO groups (p = 0.05): patients with 3 or more mm decrease in PCO had the best postoperative ROM (p = 0.047). There was no statistical difference between the postoperative ROM between patients with a stable PCO and those with an increased PCO. There was no correlation between the difference in PCO and the difference in ROM; R Pearson = -0.056. There was no difference in postoperative ROM or postoperative total KSS between CP <60% and CP >60%: p = 0.22, p = 0.99, for ROM and KSS, respectively. Scatter plots showed uniform clouds of values: increase or decrease in PCO and CP had no significant influence on ROM or KSS.
CONCLUSION: The hypotheses that a stable PCO and a more natural CP increase postoperative ROM and improve clinical outcome could not be confirmed. On the contrary, a decreased PCO seemed to improve knee flexion. Furthermore, a relationship between PCO and CP could not be found. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective cohort study, Level II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23677140     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2525-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  26 in total

1.  In vivo determination of condylar lift-off and screw-home in a mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  J B Stiehl; D A Dennis; R D Komistek; H S Crane
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Making sense of knee arthroplasty kinematics: news you can use.

Authors:  Scott A Banks; M K Harman; J Bellemans; W A Hodge
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  The effect of posterior tibial slope on knee flexion in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Xiaojun Shi; Bin Shen; Pengde Kang; Jing Yang; Zongke Zhou; Fuxing Pei
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-06-02       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.

Authors:  J N Insall; L D Dorr; R D Scott; W N Scott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study.

Authors:  Young-Hoo Kim; Keun-Soo Sohn; Jun-Shik Kim
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Rollback in posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. A radiographic analysis.

Authors:  H Kim; R R Pelker; D H Gibson; J F Irving; J K Lynch
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  A new measurement technique for the tibiofemoral contact point in normal knees and knees with TKR.

Authors:  R J de Jong; P J C Heesterbeek; A B Wymenga
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  The role of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement.

Authors:  A N Misra; M R A Hussain; N J Fiddian; G Newton
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2003-04

9.  Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Young-Hoo Kim; Yoowang Choi; Jun-Shik Kim
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Posterior femoral condylar offset after total knee replacement in the risk of knee flexion contracture.

Authors:  Tomohiro Onodera; Tokifumi Majima; Osamu Nishiike; Yasuhiko Kasahara; Daisuke Takahashi
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-11-02       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  9 in total

1.  Control of paradoxical kinematics in posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty by increasing posterior femoral offset.

Authors:  J Donadio; A Pelissier; P Boyer; P Massin
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Importance of knee flexion range of motion during the acute phase after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tomohiro Oka; Osamu Wada; Tsuyoshi Asai; Hideto Maruno; Kiyonori Mizuno
Journal:  Phys Ther Res       Date:  2020-08-05

3.  Predictors of flexion using the rotating concave-convex total knee arthroplasty: preoperative range of motion is not the only determinant.

Authors:  Jean Langlois; Anaïs Charles-Nelson; Sandrine Katsahian; Julien Beldame; Benjamin Lefebvre; Michel Bercovy
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Changes in femoral posterior condylar offset and knee flexion after PCL-substituting total knee arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior referencing systems.

Authors:  Hyuksoo Han; Sohee Oh; Chong Bum Chang; Seung-Baik Kang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  No difference in range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jörg Lützner; Franziska Beyer; Julian Dexel; Hagen Fritzsche; Cornelia Lützner; Stephan Kirschner
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Patient-specific and intra-operatively modifiable factors assessed by computer navigation predict maximal knee flexion one year after TKA.

Authors:  Frank Lampe; Carlos J Marques; Franziska Fiedler; Anusch Sufi-Siavach; Ana I Carita; Georg Matziolis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Different femorotibial contact points between fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs do not show clinical impact.

Authors:  R A van Stralen; P J C Heesterbeek; A B Wymenga
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Effect of posterior condylar offset in post operative range of motion in cruciate retaining and sacrificing TKR: A comparative analysis.

Authors:  Goutham D V Goutham; Vijay Kumar Jain; Skand Sinha; Rajendra Kumar Arya
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-06-29

9.  Effect of femoral posterior condyle offset on knee joint function after total knee replacement: a network meta-analysis and a sequential retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Yimin Zhang; Jun Wang; Miao Zhang; Yun Xu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-02-10       Impact factor: 2.359

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.