| Literature DB >> 27036995 |
Morten G Thomsen1, Roshan Latifi2, Thomas Kallemose2, Henrik Husted2, Anders Troelsen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low knee awareness after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) has become the ultimate goal in trying to achieve a natural feeling knee that meet patient expectations. To accommodate this manufacturers of TKAs have developed new prosthetic designs that potentially could give patients a more natural feeling knee during activities. The purpose af this study was to compare the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) of patients treated with a previous generation standard Cruciate Retaining (CR) TKA to the scores obtained by patients treated with a newer generation CR TKA or a mobile bearing CR TKA.Entities:
Keywords: Arthroplasty; Awareness; Design; FJS; Knee; OKS; Rehabilitation; TKA
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27036995 PMCID: PMC4818449 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1001-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Measurement of the anatomical alignment (α) of a knee after primary TKA with a Vanguard ROCC knee prosthesis as presented by Petersen et al
Demographics of patients included in the analysis after re-matching
| Newer generation CR vs previous generation CR | MB-CR vs previous generation CR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ||
| Age | 63 (11) | 67 (10) | 62 (8) | 65 (8) | |
| Gender | Male | 14 (40 %) | 28 (44 %) | 27 (40 %) | 48 (40 %) |
| Female | 21 (60 %) | 36 (56 %) | 41 (60 %) | 73 (60 %) | |
| Year of surgery | 2010 | 0 | 0 | 9 (13 %) | 16 (13 %) |
| 2011 | 3 (9 %) | 5 (8 %) | 33 (49 %) | 58 (48 %) | |
| 2012 | 28 (80 %) | 51 (80 %) | 26 (38 % | 47 (39 %) | |
| 2013 | 4 (11 %) | 8 (12 %) | 0 | 0 | |
| KL-grade | 1-2 | 13 (37 %) | 25 (39 %) | 26 (38 %) | 47 (39 %) |
| 3-4 | 22 (63 %) | 39 (61 %) | 42 (62 %) | 74 (61 %) | |
| Preop. axis | 1° (5°) | 1° (6°) | 1° (5°) | 1° (5°) | |
| Postop. axis | 4° (3°) | 5° (3°) | 4° (3°) | 5° (3°) | |
Numbers presented in brackets are standard deviations (SD) where data is normally distributed or percentages of all
Fig. 2Flow diagram describing patients invited to participate in the study and included in the analysis
FJS and OKS scores (mean) of the matched groups
| Newer generation CR vs Previous generation CR |
| ||
| ( | ( | ||
| FJS | 59 (27) | 44 (28) | 0.033 |
| OKS | 37 (11) | 32 (11) | 0.039 |
| Mobile Bearing CR vs. Previous generation CR | |||
| ( | ( | ||
| FJS | 57 (28) | 52 (30) | 0.49 |
| OKS | 38 (9) | 34 (11) | 0.047 |
Standard deviations are presented in brackets
Questions included in the FJS questionnaire
| Are you aware of your artificial knee … | |
|---|---|
| 1 | … in bed at night? |
| 2 | … when sitting on a chair for more than one hour? |
| 3 | … when you are walking for more than 15 min? |
| 4 | … when taking a bath/shower? |
| 5 | … when travelling in a car? |
| 6 | … when climbing stairs? |
| 7 | … when walking on uneven ground? |
| 8 | … when standing up from a low-sitting position? |
| 9 | … when standing for long periods of time? |
| 10 | … when doing housework or gardening? |
| 11 | … when taking a walk or hiking? |
| 12 | … when doing your favourite sport? |