COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

High-flexion versus conventional total knee arthroplasty: a 5-year study.

PURPOSE: To compare mid-term outcomes of a high-flexion prosthesis with a conventional prosthesis.

METHODS: Records of 107 consecutive patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for primary osteoarthritis by a single surgeon were reviewed. 21 men and 36 women (mean age, 65 years) used a high-flexion prosthesis (NexGen CR-Flex Mobile, Zimmer), whereas 38 men and 12 women (mean age, 67 years) used a conventional prosthesis (Genesis II, Smith & Nephew) that preserves the posterior cruciate ligament, with mobile-bearing polyethylene inlay. The Knee Society knee and functional scores and the range of motion (especially maximum passive flexion) were assessed. Radiographs were evaluated to identify radiolucent lines at the bone cement interface, patella tracking, tibiofemoral alignment, and implant positioning.

RESULTS: The mean follow-up period was 68 (range, 51- 70) months. In terms of the mean Knee Society scores and range of motion, the difference between groups was not significant (p>0.05), but the improvement in both groups after TKA was significant (p<0.005). Respectively in the high-flexion and conventional TKA groups, 2 and one of the patients developed deep vein thrombosis and were treated with anticoagulants for 3 months. One and 5 of the patients had an unsatisfactory range of motion (<60º) in week 1, which was resolved with mobilisation under general anaesthesia in combination with a peridural catheter for analgesia. No patient developed implant-specific complications such as aseptic loosening (osteolysis, progressive radiolucent lines, implant deviation) or dislocation of the polyethylene insert.

CONCLUSION: The high-flexion prosthesis revealed no significant advantages over the conventional prosthesis in terms of the Knee Society scores and range of motion. Long-term studies are needed to determine whether the high-flexion implant is superior to the conventional implant in terms of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app