The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 201-206, February 2012

Safety and Efficacy of a Rotating-Platform, High-Flexion Knee Design:

Three- to Five-Year Follow-Up

Received 28 June 2010; accepted 3 April 2011. published online 30 May 2011.

Abstract 

Our hypothesis was that a high-flexion rotating-platform posterior stabilized (RP-PS) design could maximize range of motion (ROM) and improve deep-flexion activities. Eighty-seven consecutive patients (109 knees) with high-flexion RP-PS design were prospectively followed up for a minimum of 3 years. Radiographic and clinical outcomes were analyzed using Knee Society Score criteria and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Good to excellent clinical scores were achieved in 96% of the knees. There were no cases of infection, malalignment, loosening, osteolysis, or spinout. The mean preoperative ROM improved from 110.7° to 124° postoperatively. High-flexion activities such as squatting and kneeling were achieved in 62% and 60% of patients, respectively. High-flexion knee implant is safe and improves ROM and deep-flexion activities. Persistent pain is an important cause of dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty.

Keywords: total knee arthroplasty, high-flexion knee design, rotating-platform implant

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 associated with this article can be found at doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.013.

PII: S0883-5403(11)00172-0

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.013

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 27, Issue 2 , Pages 201-206, February 2012