| Literature DB >> 27053806 |
Nilen A Shah1, Hitendra Gulabrao Patil1, Vinod O Vaishnav1, Abhijit Savale1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subvastus approach used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is known to produce an earlier recovery but is not commonly utilized for TKA when the preoperative range of motion (ROM) of the knee is limited. Subvastus approach is known for its ability to give earlier recovery due to less postoperative pain and early mobilization (due to rapid quadriceps recovery). Subvastus approach is considered as a relative contraindication for TKA in knees with limited ROM due to difficulty in exposure which can increase risk of complications such as patellar tendon avulsion or medial collateral injury. Short stature and obesity are also relative contraindications. Tarabichi successfully used subvastus approach in knees with limited preoperative ROM. However, there are no large series in literature with the experience of the subvatus approach in knees with limited preoperative ROM. We are presenting our experience of the subvastus approach for TKA in knees with limited ROM.Entities:
Keywords: Knee replacement; Limited preoperative range of motion; arthroplasty replacement; knee; osteoarthritis; subvastus approach; total knee arthroplasty
Year: 2016 PMID: 27053806 PMCID: PMC4800959 DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.177582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Orthop ISSN: 0019-5413 Impact factor: 1.251
Figure 1(a) X-ray of knee joint anteroposterior and lateral views showing severe osteoarthritis (b) Preoperative clinical photograph showing drop and dangle test under anaesthesia and available flexion (c) X-ray anteroposterior and lateral views showing postoperative x-ray with TKR implant in situ (d) Clinical photographs showing flexion at end of surgery (e) Clinical photograph showing flexion at end of 2 years
Figure 2(a) X-ray of knee joint anteroposterior and lateral views showing severe osteoarthritis (b) Preoperative clinical photograph showing drop and dangle test under anaesthesia and available flexion (c) X-ray anteroposterior and lateral views showing postoperative x-ray with TKR implant in situ (d) Clinical photographs showing flexion at end of surgery (e) Clinical photograph showing flexion at end of 2 years
Comparison of results using CR and PS knees
Literature review