Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2014 / Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1

Relationship between range of motion and femoral rollback in total knee arthroplasty

Pages
1–5
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Despite increase in femoral rollback and its relation with ROM in PS TKA, there were no differences in ROM between CR and PS TKA.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relation between femoral rollback and range of motion (ROM) in patients with cruciate retaining (CR) and posterior stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: The study included 38 knees of 31 patients (26 female and 5 male) with primary knee arthrosis who underwent TKA.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Despite increase in femoral rollback and its relation with ROM in PS TKA, there were no differences in ROM between CR and PS TKA.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the relation between femoral rollback and range of motion (ROM) in patients with cruciate retaining (CR) and posterior stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: The study included 38 knees of 31 patients (26 female and 5 male) with primary knee arthrosis who underwent TKA. The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was sacrificed in 24 knees in the PS group and preserved in 14 in the CR group. Mean follow-up was 30.6 months. Patients were submitted to fluoroscopic lateral evaluation for ROM and femoral rollback assessment. Results: Average ROM of the CR group was 106.43±9º and 105.43±11.7º for the PS group (p=0.78). Average femoral rollback was 10.5±9.7 mm and was significantly lower in the CR group (5.8±6.5 mm) than the PS group (13.2±10.5 mm) (p=0.026615). While there was no correlation between the femoral rollback and ROM for CR prostheses (p=0.78 and r=0.8), there was a significant correlation for PR prostheses (p=0.01 and r=0.49) with regression pointing to an increase of 0.545 degrees ROM for each unit of femoral rollback. Conclusion: Despite increase in femoral rollback and its relation with ROM in PS TKA, there were no differences in ROM between CR and PS TKA.

🔖

Cite This Article

Jr., L. H. D. C., TEMPONI, E. F., SOARES, L. F. M., GONÇALVES, M. J. B. (2014). Relationship between range of motion and femoral rollback in total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 48 - Sayı: 1, 1–5. https://ajindex.com/articles/353988

References (15)

  1. Ritter MA, Campbell ED. Effect of range of motion on the success of a total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1987;2:95-7
  2. Aglietti P, Buzzi R, De Felice R, Giron F. The Insall-Burstein total knee replacement in osteoarthritis: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Arthroplasty 1999;14:560-5
  3. Anouchi YS, McShane M, Kelly F Jr, Elting J, Stiehl J. Range of motion in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;331:87-92
  4. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE Jr, Ranawat CS, Scott RD, Thornhill TS, et al. In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;356:47-57
  5. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:13-4
  6. Insall JN, Hood RW, Flawn LB, Sullivan DJ. The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis. A five to nineyear follow-up of the first one hundred consecutive replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983;65:619-28
  7. McAuley JP, Harrer MF, Ammeen D, Engh GA. Outcome of knee arthroplasty in patients with poor preoperative range of motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;404:203- 7
  8. Myles CM, Rowe PJ, Walker CR, Nutton RW. Knee joint functional range of movement prior to and following total knee arthroplasty measured using flexible electrogoniometry. Gait Posture 2002;16:46-54
  9. Tew M, Forster IW, Wallace WA. Effect of total knee arthroplasty on maximal flexion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;247:168-74
  10. Yamakado K, Kitaoka K, Yamada H, Hashiba K, Nakamura R, Tomita K. Influence of stability on range of motion after cruciate-retaining TKA. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2003;123:1-4. 11. de Carvalho LH Jr, Castro CA, Gonçalves MB, Rodrigues LC, Cunha FV, Lopes FL. Range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Acta Ortop Bras 2005;13:233-4
  11. Walker PS, Garg A. Range of motion in total knee arthroplasty. A computer analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991;262:227-35
  12. Hartford JM, Banit D, Hall K, Kaufer H. Radiographic analysis of low contact stress meniscal bearing total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83-A:229-34
  13. Andriacchi TP, Galante JO. Retention of the posterior cruciate in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1988;3 Suppl:13-9
  14. Sorger JI, Federle D, Kirk PG, Grood E, Cochran J, Levy M. The posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1997;12:869-79
  15. Clark CR, Rorabeck CH, MacDonald S, MacDonald D, Swafford J, Cleland D. Poster