FLEXION AND ANTERIOR KNEE PAIN AFTER HIGH FLEXION POSTERIOR STABILISED OR CRUCIATE RETAINING KNEE REPLACEMENT

Introduction

Special high-flexion prosthetic designs show a small increase in postoperative flexion compared to standard designs and some papers show increased anterior knee pain with these prosthesis. However, no randomised controlled trails have been published which investigate difference in postoperative complaints of anterior knee pain. To assess difference in passive and active postoperative flexion and anterior knee pain we performed a randomized clinical trial including the two extremes of knee arthroplasty designs, being a high flex posterior stabilized rotating platform prosthesis versus a traditional cruciate retaining fixed bearing prosthesis. We hypothesised that the HF-PS design would allow more flexion, due to increased femoral rollback with less anterior knee pain than the CR design. We specifically assessed the following hypotheses:

1. Patients have increased flexion after HF-PS TKA compared to CR TKA, both passive and active.

2. Patients show an increased femoral rollback in the HF-PS TKA as compared to the CR TKA.

3. Patients receiving a HF-PS TKA design report reduced anterior knee pain relative to those receiving the CR TKA.

Methods

In total 47 patients were randomly allocated to a standard cruciate retaining fixed bearing design (CR) in 23 patients and to a high-flexion posterior stabilized mobile bearing design (HF-PS) in 24 patients. Preoperative and one year postoperative we investigated active and passive maximal flexion. Furthermore, we used the VAS pain score at rest and during exercise and the Feller score to investigate anterior knee pain. A lateral roentgen photograph was used to measure femoral rollback during maximal flexion.

Results

The HF-PS did show a significantly higher passive postoperative flexion; 120.8° (SD 10.3°) vs. 112.0° (SD 9.5°) for the CR group (p=0.004). The active postoperative flexion, VAS-pain score and Feller score did not show significant differences between both groups. Sub analysis with the HF-PS group showed a higher VAS-pain for the patients achieving ≥130° of flexion; 30.5 (SD 32.2) vs. 12.2 (SD 12.5) (p=0.16). The rollback was significantly lower in the CR group compared to the HF-PS group; 4.4 (SD 3.0) vs. 8.4 (SD 2.1)

Conclusion

The present study showed a significant higher passive flexion in the Posterior Stabilised-High Flexion mobile bearing compared to a Cruciate Retaining fixed bearing prosthesis. However, this difference disappeared when comparing active flexion. The difference in passive flexion was probably related to a significantly lower rollback causing impingement in the CR prosthesis. No difference in anterior knee pain was found between both groups. However, a suggestion is raised that achieving high-flexion might lead to more patellofemoral complaints/anterior knee pain.