Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research: May 2013 - Volume 471 - Issue 5 - p 1498–1503 doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2629-4 Symposium: Special Considerations for TKA in Asian Patients FREE

No Better Flexion or Function of High-flexion Designs in Asian Patients With TKA

Seon, Jong-Keun, MD1; Yim, Ji-Hyeon, MD1; Seo, Hyoung-Yeon, MD1; Song, Eun-Kyoo, MD1, a
Knee

Background Recently, high-flexion PCL-retaining (CR) and -substituting (PS) knee prostheses were designed to allow greater and safer flexion after TKA. However, the advantages of high-flexion TKA over standard design have been debated in terms of early maximal flexion. A recent study reported a high incidence of early loosening of the femoral component related to the deep flexion provided by high-flexion PS TKA.

 

Questions/Purposes We determined whether high-flexion fixed bearing CR and PS prostheses would provide (1) a better flexion, (2) a better function, and (3) a higher incidence of radiographic loosening than TKA performed using standard fixed bearing CR prostheses in Asian patients.

 

Methods From a total of 182 patients with primary unilateral TKA, we retrospectively reviewed 137 TKAs: 47 with high-flexion CR, 42 with high-flexion PS, and 48 with standard CR designs. ROM, Knee Society scores, and WOMAC scores were evaluated and compared among the three groups. Radiographically, we assessed radiolucent zones and component loosening. Minimum followup was 5 years (mean, 6.2 years; range, 5-8 years).

 

Results We found no differences among the three groups in mean maximal flexion (high-flexion CR: 135°; high-flexion PS: 134°; standard CR: 136°), Knee Society scores, and WOMAC scores at last followup. Also, there were no differences among the three groups in terms of radiolucent lines around the prosthesis. No patient in any group had loosening of the femoral component.

 

Conclusions The high-flexion CR or PS design had no advantages over the standard CR design with respect to ROM, clinical scores, and radiolucent lines around the femoral or tibial component after 5 years’ followup.

 

Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Download article