The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 26, Issue 6, Supplement , Pages 28-34, September 2011

Prospective Randomized Comparison of High-Flex and Standard Rotating Platform Total Knee Arthroplasty

Received 12 July 2010; accepted 31 March 2011. published online 04 July 2011.

Abstract 

We sought to determine if the rotating platform (RP) high-flex design provides improved flexion compared with the standard RP total knee. A total of 142 patients were randomized to receive an RP flex (RP-F) or RP TKA. Supine flexion was measured with a goniometer and lateral x-ray. There was no difference in flexion measured at any interval between groups (1-year clinical flexion RP, 124.0°; RP-F, 124.2°; P = .949; 1-year x-ray flexion RP, 117.9°; RP-F, 117.6°; P = .985). There was no difference between groups comparing the improvement from preoperative to 1-year postoperative flexion (RP-F, 5.2°; RP, 4.1°; P = .580). There were 13 patients with postoperative patellar crepitus, with more in the RP-F group (RP-F, 11 patients [16.7%]; RP, 2 patients [3.2%]; P = .017). Owing to these results, coupled with the increased bone resection and higher cost, we no longer routinely use the RP-F design.

Keywords: TKA, high flexion, total knee replacement, rotating platform, range of motion

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The Conflict of Interest statement associated with this article can be found at doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.03.045.

PII: S0883-5403(11)00157-4

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.03.045

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 26, Issue 6, Supplement , Pages 28-34, September 2011