Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Kneeling and standing up from a chair as performance-based tests to evaluate knee function in the high-flexion range: a randomized controlled trial comparing a conventional and a high-flexion TKA design.

BACKGROUND: We compared the functional outcome between conventional and high-flexion total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using kneeling and sit-to-stand tests at 1 year post-operative. In addition, the patient's daily functioning, pain and satisfaction were quantified using questionnaires.

METHODS: We randomly assigned 56 patients to receive either a conventional or a high-flexion TKA. Primary outcomes were maximum flexion angle and maximum thigh-calf contact measured during kneeling at 1 year post operatively. Secondary outcomes were the angular knee velocity and ground reaction force ratio measured during sit-to-stand performance tests, and questionnaires.

RESULTS: At one year post-operative, maximum knee flexion during kneeling was higher for the high-flexion TKA group (median 128.02° (range 108-146)) compared to the conventional TKA group (119.13° (range 72-135)) (p = 0.03). Maximum thigh-calf contact force was higher for the high flexion TKA group (median 17.82 N (range 2.98-114.64)) compared to the conventional TKA group (median 9.37 N (range 0.33-46.58))(p = 0.04). The sit-to-stand tests showed a significantly higher angular knee velocity in the conventional TKA group (12.12 rad/s (95%CI 0.34-23.91); p = 0.04). There were no significant differences between groups in ground reaction force ratios and patient-reported outcome scores.

CONCLUSION: Although no differences were found in patient-reported outcome scores, differences in performance-based tests were clearly apparent. Standing up from a chair at 90° of knee flexion appeared to be easier for the conventional group. The kneeling test revealed significantly higher weight-bearing knee flexion for the high-flex group. Hence, if kneeling is an important activity for a patient a high-flex design may be recommendable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT00899041 (date of registration: May 11, 2009).

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