» Articles » PMID: 39280541

Factors Influencing the Postoperative Flexion Angle in Cruciate-Sacrificing Rotating Platform of Total Knee Arthroplasty

Overview
Journal Cureus
Date 2024 Sep 16
PMID 39280541
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Various factors affect the improvement of range of motion (ROM) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there are few reports specific to cruciate-sacrificing rotating platform (CSRP) TKA. In this study, factors affecting postoperative ROM improvement of CSRP TKA were investigated.

Methods: The study included 79 patients with knee osteoarthritis who underwent unilateral CSRP TKA at our institution. The group with an improvement of 5° or more (Δflexion angle) than the preoperative was defined as the good Δflexion group (38 knees), and that with less than 5° was defined as the poor Δflexion group (41 knees). The assessments were performed one day before and one year after surgery. Factors including rest and walking pain, knee flexion and extension angle, isometric knee extension strength, the five subscales of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), α, β, γ and δ angles, femoro-tibial angle (FTA), and condylar twist angle were assessed. Unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Chi-square test were used to test differences between the good and poor Δflexion groups. Multiple logistic regression examined the association between each factor and the dependent variables (good Δflexion or poor Δflexion).

Results: Significant differences in the preoperative knee flexion, postoperative knee flexion, preoperative knee extension, and postoperative knee extension angles, postoperative KOOS pain and activity of daily living, β, ɤ angles were observed between the good and poor Δflexion groups. The model Chi-squared test revealed that the ɤ angle was significantly affected by the Δflexion angle.

Conclusions: With the CSRP TKA, flexion insertion of the femoral component was associated with postoperative flexion ROM improvement.

References
1.
Tarazi J, Chen Z, Scuderi G, Mont M . The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2021; 34(13):1396-1401. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735282. View

2.
Shi M, Lu H, Guan Z . [Influence of preoperative range of motion on the early clinical outcome of total knee arthroplasty]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2006; 44(16):1101-5. View

3.
Laoruengthana A, Rattanaprichavej P, Suangyanon P, Galassi M, Teekaweerakit P, Pongpirul K . Hyperextension following two different designs of fixed-bearing posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021; 32(8):1641-1650. DOI: 10.1007/s00590-021-03150-6. View

4.
Dyrhovden G, Gothesen O, Lygre S, Fenstad A, Soras T, Halvorsen S . Is the use of computer navigation in total knee arthroplasty improving implant positioning and function? A comparative study of 198 knees operated at a Norwegian district hospital. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013; 14:321. PMC: 3833179. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-321. View

5.
Kawahara S, Mawatari T, Matsui G, Hamai S, Akasaki Y, Tsushima H . Improved surgical procedure of primary constrained total knee arthroplasty which enables use of the femoral diaphyseal straight extension stem. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):408. PMC: 9063044. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05367-w. View