Anteroposterior translation and range of motion after total knee arthroplasty using posterior cruciate ligament-retaining versus posterior cruciate ligament-substituting prostheses
Purpose It is still controversial whether anteroposterior (AP) translation magnitude after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) affects clinical outcomes, particularly range of motion (ROM). This study examined the following two questions: (1) are AP translations at the mid- and long-term follow-up differe...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2017-11, Vol.25 (11), p.3536-3542 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose
It is still controversial whether anteroposterior (AP) translation magnitude after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) affects clinical outcomes, particularly range of motion (ROM). This study examined the following two questions: (1) are AP translations at the mid- and long-term follow-up different for knees within the same patient treated with posterior cruciate ligament-retaining (PCLR) versus posterior cruciate ligament-substituting (PCLS) mobile-bearing TKA prosthesis designs? (2) Is the ROM at the mid- and long-term follow-up for knees treated with PCLR and PCLS designs correlated with the AP translation?
Methods
Thirty-seven patients undergoing sequential bilateral TKA for osteoarthritis were prospectively enrolled. Patients received a PCLR implant in one knee and a PCLS implant in the other and were followed-up for an average 9.8 ± 3.2 years. The AP translations at 30° and 75° of knee flexion and the ROM of both knees were assessed.
Results
The implant design (
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 0942-2056 1433-7347 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00167-016-4257-0 |