Literature DB >> 32684670

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

Goutham D V Goutham1, Vijay Kumar Jain1, Skand Sinha1, Rajendra Kumar Arya1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Restoration of posterior condylar offset (PCO) during TKA is believed to be an important to improve knee kinematics, maximizing range of motion (ROM) and minimizing flexion instability. The aim of prospective study was to find out the role of PCO in post-operative ROM after cruciate retaining (CR) and cruciate sacrificing (CS) TKA. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 90 patients were divided into the CR knee group (49) and CS knee Group (41) intra-operatively by the surgeon based on the status of Posterior Cruciate Ligament. Preoperative and postoperative PCO was evaluated on true lateral knee radiographs. The ROM was measured pre operatively and post operatively at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 3 months, 1 year and 2 years. Appropriate statistical tests were used and results were interpreted.
RESULTS: The mean flexion angle was 113.86° in CR knees and 118.29° in CS knees with a significantly greater improvement observed for the latter group. Preoperative mean PCO was 35.08 mm in CR knees and 36.37 mm in CS knees, while the corresponding values post operatively were 32.74 mm and 34.88 mm respectively, at follow-up. In order to evaluate the relationship between change of PCO and postoperative improvement in range of flexion, we divided the patients into three sub groups according to the difference in pre and post-operative PCO. The first sub group had a difference in PCO ≤ 1 mm after surgery (CR: 5 and CS: 8), second sub group with a difference in PCO 1-3 mm after surgery (CR: 28 and CS: 26) and the third subgroup with a difference in PCO >3 mm after surgery (CR: 16 and CS: 7). Then a comparison of difference in PCO and post-operative range of motion was done in both CR knees and CS knees separately. The final post-operative range of motion (flexion) in CR knees was 117.6°, 115.93° and 109.06° for the three subgroups respectively. Similarly, the final post-operative range of motion (flexion) in CS knees was 116.12°, 118.81° and 118.86° for the three subgroups respectively. Thus a significant difference between three sub groups was observed in CR knees (P < 0.0001), while no difference was observed in the PS knees.
CONCLUSION: The postoperative decrease in posterior condylar offset by more than 3 mm decreases the post-operative ROM in CR TKA but not in CS TKA. So it is critical to preserve PCO in CR but perhaps not CS knees to ensure optimal ROM postoperatively.
© 2020 Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cruciate retaining; Cruciate sacrificing; Posterior condylar offset; ROM; TKR; Total knee arthroplasty

Year:  2020        PMID: 32684670      PMCID: PMC7352049          DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.06.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop        ISSN: 0972-978X


  27 in total

1.  In vivo kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate ligament retention or sacrifice with a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  J B Stiehl; D A Dennis; R D Komistek; P A Keblish
Journal:  Am J Knee Surg       Date:  2000

2.  Why posterior cruciate-retaining and substituting total knee replacements have similar ranges of motion. The importance of posterior condylar offset and cleanout of posterior condylar space.

Authors:  Wayne M Goldstein; David J Raab; Thomas F Gleason; Jill Jasperson Branson; Kimberly Berland
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Health-related quality of life after knee replacement.

Authors:  G Hawker; J Wright; P Coyte; J Paul; R Dittus; R Croxford; B Katz; C Bombardier; D Heck; D Freund
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  An electrogoniometric study of knee motion in normal gait.

Authors:  D B Kettelkamp; R J Johnson; G L Smidt; E Y Chao; M Walker
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1970-06       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Range of motion in total knee replacement.

Authors:  Y S Anouchi; M McShane; F Kelly; J Elting; J Stiehl
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Factors influencing the postoperative range of motion in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  J Ryu; S Saito; K Yamamoto; S Sano
Journal:  Bull Hosp Jt Dis       Date:  1993

Review 7.  Limited range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: etiology, treatment, and prognosis.

Authors:  P J Papagelopoulos; F H Sim
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 1.390

Review 8.  Influence of posterior condylar offset on knee flexion after cruciate-sacrificing mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a prospective analysis of 410 consecutive cases.

Authors:  T Bauer; D Biau; M Colmar; X Poux; P Hardy; A Lortat-Jacob
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 2.199

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

Authors:  G J P Geijsen; P J C Heesterbeek; G van Stralen; P G Anderson; A B Wymenga
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Posterior condylar offset does not correlate with knee flexion after TKA.

Authors:  Yoshinori Ishii; Hideo Noguchi; Mitsuhiro Takeda; Junko Sato; Shin-ichi Toyabe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04-23       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  Improved joint line and posterior offset restoration in primary total knee replacement using a robotic-assisted surgical technique: An international multi-centre retrospective analysis of matched cohorts.

Authors:  Ravi Popat; Ali Albelooshi; Piyush Mahapatra; Peter Bollars; Max Ettinger; Simon Jennings; Jan-Louis Van den Berg; Dinesh Nathwani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-08-25       Impact factor: 3.752

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.