Literature DB >> 25100487

No difference in gait between posterior cruciate retention and the posterior stabilized design after total knee arthroplasty.

Lennard G H van den Boom1, Jan P K Halbertsma, Jos J A M van Raaij, Reinoud W Brouwer, Sjoerd K Bulstra, Inge van den Akker-Scheek.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In the present study, knee joint kinematics (e.g. knee flexion/extension) and kinetics (e.g. knee flexion moments) are assessed after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between patients implanted with either a unilateral posterior stabilized (PS) and a posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) design. It was hypothesized that maximum knee flexion during the loading response of the stance phase is greater in patients implanted with a PS design than in patients with a PCR design. Secondarily, it was hypothesized that patients with a PS design show decreased knee flexion moments during loading, compared with patients implanted with a PCR design.
METHODS: This study examined two groups of TKA patients: one group (n = 12) with a PS design in which the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was sacrificed and the other (n = 9) with a PCR design. Gait analysis was used in level walking before and 6-9 months after surgery, to assess knee joint kinematics and kinetics during the loading response of the stance phase.
RESULTS: No significant differences in maximum knee flexion between the two groups were found during the loading response of the stance phase. No significant differences in knee flexion moments were found either. Although in both groups knee flexion moments increased postoperatively, this was not statistically significant. In the contralateral (nonimplanted) knees, all mean knee flexion moments decreased postoperatively for both groups, yet this was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The present gait analysis study showed no differences in kinematics and kinetics between the PS and the PCR TKP design. This might suggest that surgeons do not necessarily need to substitute the PCL by a PS design during TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative study, Level II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25100487     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-014-3215-y

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


  24 in total

1.  Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Douglas A Dennis; Richard D Komistek; Mohamed R Mahfouz; Brian D Haas; James B Stiehl
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Influence of surface geometry and the cam-post mechanism on the kinematics of total knee replacement.

Authors:  H Pandit; T Ward; D Hollinghurst; D J Beard; H S Gill; N P Thomas; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-07

Review 3.  Gait analysis of patients following total knee replacement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jodie A McClelland; Kate E Webster; Julian A Feller
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2007-05-24       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Quantitative comparison of five current protocols in gait analysis.

Authors:  Alberto Ferrari; Maria Grazia Benedetti; Esteban Pavan; Carlo Frigo; Dario Bettinelli; Marco Rabuffetti; Paolo Crenna; Alberto Leardini
Journal:  Gait Posture       Date:  2008-02-15       Impact factor: 2.840

5.  A comparison of isokinetic strength testing and gait analysis in patients with posterior cruciate-retaining and substituting knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  A A Bolanos; W A Colizza; P D McCann; R S Gotlin; M E Wootten; B A Kahn; J N Insall
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Gait analysis comparison of cruciate retaining and substituting TKA following PCL sacrifice.

Authors:  Siddharth Joglekar; Terence J Gioe; Patrick Yoon; Michael H Schwartz
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  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

8.  The influence of total knee-replacement design on walking and stair-climbing.

Authors:  T P Andriacchi; J O Galante; R W Fermier
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Functional comparison of posterior cruciate-retained versus cruciate-sacrificed total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  L D Dorr; J L Ochsner; J Gronley; J Perry
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Lennard G H van den Boom; Reinoud W Brouwer; Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Jos J A M van Raaij
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  10 in total

1.  Clinical outcome after total knee replacement.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Reha N Tandogan; Jon Karlsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Slow gait speed after bilateral total knee arthroplasty is associated with suboptimal improvement of knee biomechanics.

Authors:  Du Hyun Ro; Hyuk-Soo Han; Dong Yeon Lee; Seong Hwan Kim; Yoon-Ho Kwak; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Comparison of outcomes after bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty using posterior-substituting versus cruciate-retaining prostheses.

Authors:  Hong-Guang Liu; Wei Zhu; Zhen-Xiang Zhang
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.484

4.  Total knee arthroplasty designed to accommodate the presence or absence of the posterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Melinda K Harman; Stephanie J Bonin; Chris J Leslie; Scott A Banks; W Andrew Hodge
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2014-10-08

5.  Improved knee biomechanics among patients reporting a good outcome in knee-related quality of life one year after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Josefine E Naili; Per Wretenberg; Viktor Lindgren; Maura D Iversen; Margareta Hedström; Eva W Broström
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Deficits in functional performance and gait one year after total knee arthroplasty despite improved self-reported function.

Authors:  Josefine E Naili; Maura D Iversen; Anna-Clara Esbjörnsson; Margareta Hedström; Michael H Schwartz; Charlotte K Häger; Eva W Broström
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity.

Authors:  Ethem Ayhan Ünkar; Yusuf Öztürkmen; Erhan Şükür; Engin Çarkçı; Murat Mert
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 1.511

Review 8.  Comparison of posterior cruciate retention and substitution in total knee arthroplasty during gait: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chunjiang Li; Mingjie Dong; Dinglong Yang; Zhiqiang Zhang; Junjun Shi; Ruipeng Zhao; Xiaochun Wei
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 2.359

9.  Differences in gait kinetics and kinematics between patients with rotating hinge knee and cruciate-retaining prostheses: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Takehiro Ohmi; Takumi Yamada; Sadaya Misaki; Tomohiro Tazawa; Ryota Shimamura; Junpei Kato; Kazutaka Sugimoto
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2022-09-01

10.  Posterior Cruciate Ligament Retention versus Posterior Stabilization for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Chao Jiang; Zhenlei Liu; Ying Wang; Yanyan Bian; Bin Feng; Xisheng Weng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.