Introduction and Aims: Kneeling is an important function of the knee joint but little information is available on ability to kneel after different types of knee arthroplasty. We aimed to assess patients’ kneeling ability pre- and post-operatively after uni-compartmental, patellofemoral and total knee arthroplasty (UKR, PFR, TKR) and to objectively examine: kneeling ability, factors that affect it and whether this ability differed from the patient’s perception. Method: In 253 knee arthroplasty cases, we prospectively analysed the ability to kneel pre-operatively, and post-operatively at one and two years using the relevant section of the Oxford Knee Score questionnaire. One hundred and twenty-two post-operative patients (38 TKR, 53 UKR, 31 PFR) were then examined to assess their actual kneeling ability. Results: Patients’ perception of their kneeling ability prior to surgery was poor in all three groups (mean score 0.7 out of 4) and improved in all groups after surgery (mean score at two years 1.46 out of 4). Perceived kneeling ability was best in UKR and worst in PFR (P< 0.001). Perceived kneeling ability improved most in the first year post-operatively, but continued to improve between one and two years although the final kneeling function was still not good. When examined, only 37% of patients thought they could kneel, whereas 81% were actually able to kneel (P< 0.001). Ability to kneel was significantly better than perceived ability for all prosthesis types (P< 0.001). Kneeling ability was better in men and associated with an increased range of movement (P< 0.001). Conclusion: Kneeling ability is poor prior to knee arthroplasty and improves up to two years post-operatively, though it is still perceived to be poor, but can be improved with rehabilitation. UKR gave better kneeling ability than PFR or TKR. Patient-centred questionnaires do not accurately document kneeling ability after knee arthroplasty

The aim of this study was to analyse the kneeling ability of patients before and at one and two years after total (TKR), unicompartmental (UKR) and selective patellofemoral (PFR) knee arthroplasty, for osteoarthritis. Method: Data was prospectively collected on 253 knees, which underwent either TKR, UKR or PFR. A kneeling score was obtained by analysis of the relevant section of the Oxford Knee Score questionnaire. Scores were obtained pre-operatively and at 1 and 2 years post-operatively (minimum score 0, maximum 4). Absolute values and change following arthroplasty were recorded. Correlations with pain and other knee functions were also made. Results: Kneeling ability prior to surgery was poor in all three groups (mean score 0.7 out of 4) and improved significantly after surgery (mean score at one year 1.13 and at two years 1.46 out of 4) (P< 0.001). Kneeling ability at 1 year differed significantly with operation type (p = 0.02). Kneeling ability improved most in the first year post-operatively but continued to improve between one and two years although the final function was still not good. Kneeling ability was best in UKR and worst in PFR, with the difference between these prostheses being statistically significant (P< 0.001). Conclusion: Kneeling ability in osteoarthritic knees is poor but improves with arthroplasty. However, the majority of patients will still have difficulty kneeling

Introduction: Force plate analysis of contact areas and pressure has been used in the fields of podiatry and foot surgery. We used this tool in assessing normal subjects and knee replacement patients kneeling. Aim: We analysed contact areas and pressures over the front of the knee during different kneeling positions. Methods: Twenty three normal subjects and 33 knee replacement patients were included in this study. The patients were selected according to age and kneeling ability and the absence of involvement of other joints. They had unilateral or bilateral Total (TKR) or Unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Target points were identified on the plate and patients were asked to place their tibial tuberosity on the target sites. Patients and normal subjects’ data of load, contact area and pressure were recorded with knee at 90 degrees. A second reading was taken with subjects kneeling in their maximum flexion comfortable position. Foot position during kneeling was recorded in each case. Results: Average age was 48.3 years for the normal group and 65.5.2 for the replaced knee group. Average range of motion was 141 degrees for the normal group and 115 degrees for the replaced knees group. In the normal group, there was a significant positive correlation between body mass and kneeling load at both 90 degrees and maximum flexion. Kneeling pressure was never identical in both knees in all groups. There was no significant difference of peak pressures and contact areas between the normal and UKR group. The angle of flexion affected the contact pressures as going from 90 degrees to higher flexion with the body weight still actively supported increases contact pressure, which then dropped to lowest level in maximum flexion when the body weight was supported by the calf. Peak loads were usually in the region of the tibial tuberosity. Conclusion: Kneeling may be a sided activity with each individual having a dominant knee. The UKR group showed more normal kinematics in comparison with the TKR group. Maximum contact pressures decreased in knees able to achieve full flexion. As kneeling flexion angle increases, the contact area decreases and while the thigh is off the calf and the peak pressure increases. Contact pressure dropped to below 90 degrees level whenever full flexion was achieved

Kneeling is an important aspect of daily living. Our goal was to describe the in vivo tibiofemoral kinematics during standing and kneeling after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Ten posterior substituting (PS) and 10 cruciate retaining (CR) TKA designs were studied in 18 patients. Radiographs were taken when standing, kneeling at 90°, and kneeling at maximal flexion. An image matching technique provided three-dimensional measurements of the femoral component position relative to the AP midpoint of the tibial baseplate. When standing, the CR tibiofemoral contact position (medial: 7 mm ± 3; lateral: 6 mm ± 3) was more posterior than the PS design (medial: 5 mm ± 2; lateral: 5 mm ± 2). Movement from standing to kneeling at 90° produced different responses. CR knees translated anteriorly (medial: 4 mm ± 4; lateral: 2 mm ± 6), while PS knees translated posteriorly (medial: 0.2 mm ± 3; lateral: 1 mm ± 4). During kneeling, movement from 90° to maximum flexion produced posterior translation of the femur (CR medial: 5 mm ± 4: CR lateral: 5 mm ± 4; PS medial: 6 mm ± 4; PS lateral: 6 mm ± 3). The relationship between the tibiofemoral contact position and flexion angle during kneeling was more variable for CR knees (r2=0.38) than PS knees (r2=0.64), indicating that PS knees provide a more reliable AP position than CR knees. PS knees dislocate when the arch of the femoral cam slides over the tibial post; CR knees sublux when the femoral contact position translates beyond the edge of the tibial baseplate. The distance to dislocation averaged 13 mm ± 2 for PS knees, and 20 mm±4 for CR knees. Many patients wish to resume normal activities, including kneeling after TKA. This study provides information for surgeons and patients considering kneeling after TKA

Aims: To determine the kneeling ability in 3 groups of patients who have undergone either Unicondylar, Primary, or Revision knee arthroplasty. Methods: A questionnaire was designed to determine the kneeling ability of patients who have undergone knee arthroplasty surgery. The ‘Kneeling’ questionnaire along with a Western Ontario and MacMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire was sent to 191 patients of whom, 27 have had Unicondylar, 105 had Primary and 59 Revision knee arthroplasty. Results: The mean follow-up time for assessment for each of the 3 groups of patients were; Unicondylar = 3.32 years, Primary = 5.30 years and Revision = 5.06 years. The mean total WOMAC scores for the 3 groups were; Unicondylar = 13.96, Primary = 22.10, and Revision = 38.67. The percentage of patients who underwent knee arthroplasty that found it impossible to kneel were; Unicondylar = 18%, Primary = 36% and Revision = 66%. The commonest reasons why patients found kneeling difficult were; pain and stiffness around the knee prosthesis, fear of harming the prosthesis and sensory deficit around the knee. Visual Analogue Pain scores for kneeling in the 3 patient groups were, Unicondylar = 5.6, Primary = 7.12, Revision = 9.18. A minimum of 30% of patients in each of the 3 groups reported their daily lives were moderately-severely affected due to their difficulty in kneeling following knee arthroplasty. At least 60% of the patients in each group reported they would like to have better kneeling ability. Conclusion: Unicondylar knee arthroplasty patients have better WOMAC scores and find kneeling easier than patients who have undergone Primary knee arthroplasty (p< 0.01). The Primary group have better WOMAC scores and find kneeling easier than the Revision group (p< 0.001). Kneeling is considered important in patients who have undergone knee arthroplasty. Poor kneeling ability in patients may restrict their daily activities

Aims

The aims of this study were to investigate the ability to kneel after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) without patellar resurfacing, and its effect on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Secondary aims included identifying which kneeling positions were most important to patients, and the influence of radiological parameters on the ability to kneel before and after TKA.

The bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft is associated with difficulty kneeling following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, however it is unclear whether it results in a more painful or symptomatic knee when compared to the hamstring tendon autograft. This study aimed to identify the rate of significant knee pain and difficulty kneeling following primary ACL reconstruction and clarify whether graft type influences the risk of these complications.

Primary ACL reconstructions prospectively recorded in the New Zealand ACL Registry between April 2014 and November 2019 were analyzed. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was analyzed to identify patients who reported significant knee pain, defined as a KOOS Pain subscale score of ≤72 points, and kneeling difficulty, defined as a patient who reported “severe” or “extreme” difficulty when they kneel. The rate of knee pain and kneeling difficulty was compared between graft types via univariate Chi-square test and multivariate binary logistic regression with adjustment for patient demographics.

4492 primary ACL reconstructions were analyzed. At 2-year follow-up, 9.3% of patients reported significant knee pain (420/4492) and 12.0% reported difficulty with kneeling (537/4492). Patients with a BTB autograft reported a higher rate of kneeling difficulty compared to patients with a hamstring tendon autograft (21.3% versus 9.4%, adjusted odds ratio = 3.12, p<0.001). There was no difference between graft types in the rate of significant knee pain (9.9% versus 9.2%, p = 0.49) or when comparing absolute values of the KOOS Pain (mean score for BTB = 88.7 versus 89.0, p = 0.37) and KOOS Symptoms subscales (mean score for BTB = 82.5 versus 82.1, p = 0.49).

The BTB autograft is a risk factor for post-operative kneeling difficulty, but it does not result in a more painful or symptomatic knee when compared to the hamstring tendon autograft.

In some regions in Asia or Arab, there are lifestyles without chair or bed and sitting down on a floor directly, by flexing their knee deeply. However, there are little data about the joint angles, muscle forces or joint loads at such sitting postures or descending to and rising from the posture. In this study, we report the knee joint force and the muscle forces of lower limb at deep squatting and kneeling postures.

The model to estimate the forces were constructed as 2D on sagittal plane. Floor reacting force, gravity forces and thigh-calf contact force were considered as external forces. And as the muscle, rectus and vastus femoris, hamstrings, gluteus maximus, gastrocnemius and soleus were taken into the model. The rectus and vastus were connected to the tibia with patella and patella tendon. First the muscle forces were calculated by the moment equilibrium conditions around hip, knee and ankle joint, and then the knee joint force was calculated by the force equilibrium conditions at tibia and patella.

For measuring the acting point of the floor reacting force, thigh-calf contact force and joint angles during the objective posture, we performed the experiments. The postures to be subjected were heel-contact squatting (HCS), heel-rise squatting (HRS), kneeling and seiza (Japanese sedentary kneeling), as shown in the Fig.1. The test subjects were ten healthy male, and the average height was 1.71[m], weight was 66.1[kgf] and age was 21.5[years]. The thigh-calf contact force and its acting point were measured by settling the pressure distribution sensor sheet between thigh and calf.

Results were normalized by body weight, and shown in Fig.1. The thigh-calf contact force was the largest at the heel-rise squatting posture (1.16BW), and the smallest at heel-contact squatting (0.60BW). The patellofemoral and the tibiofemoral joint forces were shown in the figure. Both forces were the largest at the heel-contact squatting, and were the smallest at the seiza posture. And it might be estimated that the thigh-calf contact force acted anterior when the ankle joint dorsiflexed, and the force was larger when the hip joint extended. The thigh-calf contact force might be decided by not only the knee joint angle but also the hip and ankle joints.

As a limitation of this study, we should mention about the effect of the neglected soft tissues. It could be considerable that the compressive internal force of the soft tissues behind a knee joint substance the tibiofemoral force, and then the real tibiofemoral force might be smaller than the calculated values in this study. Then, the tensile force of quadriceps also might be smaller, and then the patellofemoral joint force is also small.

When a knee flex deeply, the posterior side of thigh and calf contact. The contact force is unignorable to estimate the load acting on a knee because the force generates extensional moment on the knee, and the moment might be about 20–80% of the flexional moment generated by a floor reacting force. Besides, the thigh-calf contact force varies so much even if the posture or the test subject are the same that it is hard to use the average value to estimate the knee load. We have assumed that the force might change not only by the individual physical size but also by a slight change of the posture, especially the angle of the upper body. Therefore we tried to create the estimation equation for the thigh-calf contact force using both anthropometric sizes and posture angles as parameters.

The objective posture was kneeling, both plantarflexing and dorsiflexing the ankle joint. Test subjects were 10 healthy males. They were asked to sit on a floor with kneeling, and to tilt their upper body forward and backward. The estimation equations were created as the linear combinations of the parameters, determining the coefficient as to minimize the root mean square errors. We used the parameters as explanatory variables which could be divided into posture parameters and individual parameters. Posture parameters included the angle of upper body, thigh and lower thigh. Individual parameters included height, weight, axial and circumferential lengths of thigh and lower thigh. The magnitude of the force was normalized by a body weight, and the acting position was expressed by the moment arm length around a knee joint and normalized by a height.

As a result, the adjusted coefficient of determination improved and the root mean square error decreased when using both posture and individual parameters, though there were large errors when neglecting either parameters. The accuracy decreased little when using the same equation for plantarflexed and dorsiflexed kneeling in magnitude. The relation of measured and estimated values of the magnitude and acting position, using the common equation with all the parameters. It might be because the difference of the postures could be described by the inclination angle of a thigh. In both postures, the magnitude of a thigh-calf contact force was mainly affected by the posture and acting position by the individual parameters. When calculating the knee joint load, the errors would be about 8.59 Nm on the knee moment and 290 N on the knee load when using just an average, and they would decrease to 2.23 Nm and 74 N respectively using the estimation equation.

Introduction: There is an impression among Orthopaedic surgeons that mobile bearing knee replacement has a better functional outcome than fixed bearing knee replacement. Since kneeling demands a high level of function after knee replacement this study was undertaken to see if mobile bearings in either total or unicompartmental replacement conferred an advantage.

Methods: A prospective randomised study of 207 TKR patients receiving the same prosthesis (Rotaglid, Corin, UK) was performed. Patients were randomised into a mobile bearing group (102 patients with a mean age of 53 years) and a fixed bearing group (105 patients with a mean age of 55 years). Data was also prospectively collected on 215 UKR patients who received the same unicompartmental implant (AMC, Uniglide, Corin, UK). 136 patients (Mean age: 62 yrs) had a mobile insert and 79 (mean age: 65 yrs) a fixed insert.

All patients completed the Oxford Knee Questionnaire preoperatively as well as at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Their stated kneeling ability and total scores were analysed with a perfect score for kneeling ability being 4, and 48 the maximum total score.

Results: In all groups both the kneeling ability and the total scores improved markedly from their preoperative state. At two years the total score for the fixed bearing devices was marginally better than for the mobile (Rotaglide 36;31 and Uniglide 37;33)

There was a more striking difference with respect to kneeling ability with the fixed bearing variants performing better, (Rotaglide 1.4; 0.9 and Uniglide 1.9; 1.4), However, the greatest difference was between the UKR and TKR groups (UKR 1.7; TKR 1.2). Pre-operatively less than 2% of TKR patients (7% of the UKR patients) could kneel. Post-operatively, the patients’ kneeling ability improved with 21% for the mobile bearing, 32% of fixed bearing UKR patients. The TKR patients kneeling ability was 13% of the mobile, 26% of fixed bearing patients were able to kneel with little or no difficulty. In all groups the stated kneeling ability was poor with less than 50% of any group being able to kneel with ease or only minor difficulty.

Conclusion: Those undergoing UKR appeared to perform better than those with a TKR. None of the forms of knee replacement used resulted in good kneeling ability, though this function was improved by arthroplasty in all groups. Mobile bearing inserts

Introduction: There is an impression among Orthopaedic surgeons that mobile bearing knee replacement has a better functional outcome than fixed bearing knee replacement. Since kneeling demands a high level of function after knee replacement this study was undertaken to see if mobile bearings in either total or unicompartmental replacement conferred an advantage.

Methods: A prospective randomised study of 207 TKR patients receiving the same prosthesis (Rotaglid , Corin, UK) was performed. Patients were randomised into a mobile bearing group (102 patients with a mean age of 53 years) and a fixed bearing group (105 patients with a mean age of 55 years).

Data was also prospectively collected on 215 UKR patients who received the same Unicompartmental implant (AMC, Uniglide, Corin, UK). One hundred and thirty six patients (Mean age: 62 yrs) had a mobile insert and 79 (mean age: 65 yrs) a fixed insert.

All patients completed the Oxford Knee Questionnaire preoperatively as well as at 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Their stated kneeling ability and total scores were analysed with a perfect score for kneeling ability being 4 and 48 the maximum total score.

Results: In all groups both the kneeling ability and the total scores improved markedly from their preoperative state. At two years the total score for the fixed bearing devices was marginally better than for the mobile (Rotaglide 36;31 and Uniglide 37;33)

There was a more striking difference with respect to kneeling ability with the fixed- bearing variants performing better, (Rotaglide 1.4; 0.9 and Uniglide 1.9; 1.4), However, the greatest difference was between the UKR and TKR groups (UKR 1.7; TKR 1.2). Pre-operatively less than 2% of TKR patients (7% of the UKR patients) could kneel. Post-operatively, the patients’ kneeling ability improved with 21% for the mobile bearing, 32% of fixed bearing UKR patients.

The TKR patients kneeling ability was 13% of the mobile, 26% of fixed bearing patients were able to kneel with little or no difficulty. In all groups the stated kneeling ability was poor with less than 50% of any group being able to kneel with ease or only minor difficulty.

Conclusion: Those undergoing UKR appeared to perform better than those with a TKR. None of the forms of knee replacement used resulted in good kneeling ability, though this function was improved by arthroplasty in all groups. Mobile bearing inserts did not confer any advantage with respect to kneeling and in fact performed worse with regard to this particular knee function.

Background

The ability to kneel plays a crucial role in the daily events of nearly every individual's life, affecting occupational and domestic activities, which are, at times, closely intertwined with cultural and religious customs. The lack of literature addressing the patients concerns regarding the capacity, to which they will be able to function post-operatively, motivated us to investigate this issue further, so as to be able to more comfortably and precisely convey the answer to this question pre-operatively.

The objective of this study is to introduce the forces acting on the knee joint while ascending from kneeling. Our research group has developed a new type of knee prosthesis which is capable of attaining complete deep knee flexion such as a Japanese style sitting, seiza. Yet we could not set up various kinds of simulation or experiment to assess the performance of our prosthesis because the data about joints' forces during the ascent from deep knee flexion are lacking. Considering this circumstance, we created a 2D mathematical model of lower limb and determined knee joint force during ascent from kneeling to apply them for the assessment of our prosthesis.

Ten male and five female healthy subjects participated in the measurement experiment. Although the measurement of subjects' physical parameters was non-invasive and direct, some parameters had to be determined by referring to the literature. The data of ground reaction force and each joint's angle during the motion were collected using a force plate and video recording system respectively. Then the muscle forces and the joints' forces were calculated through our mathematical model. In order to verify the validity of our model approach, we first introduced the data during the activities with small/middle knee flexion such as level walking and rising from a chair; these kinds of data are available in the literature. Then we found our results were in good agreement with the literature data. Next, we introduced the data during the activities with deep knee flexion; double leg ascent [Fig.1 (a)] and single leg ascent [Fig.1 (b)] from kneeling without using the upper limbs.

The statistics of the maximum values on the single knee joint for all the subjects were; during double leg ascent, F_max = 4.6±0.6 (4.3-5.2) [BW: (force on the knee joint)/(body weight)] at knee flexion angle of b =140±8 (134-147)°, during double leg ascent, F_max = 4.9±0.5 (4.0-5.6) [BW] at b = 62±33 (28-110)° for the dominant leg, and F_max = 3.0±0.5 (22.2-3.8) [BW] at b = 138±6 (130-150)° for the supporting leg respectively. We found that the moment arm length, i.e., the location of muscle insertion significantly affected the results, while ascending speeds did not affect the results much. We may conclude that the single leg ascent should be recommended since F_maxdid not become large while deep knee flexion. The values could be used for assessing the strength of our knee prosthesis from the risk analysis view point.

Purpose: This study analyses the kneeling ability of patients following Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), Patellofemoral replacement (PFR) and Total knee replacement (TKR).

Method: Data was prospectively collected on 272 knees (254 patients) that had undergone various forms of arthroplasty procedures for osteoarthritis of the knee. All patients completed the Oxford Knee Questionnaire preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively, thus graded their kneeling ability into one of 5 categories. Absolute values and change following arthroplasty were recorded. In addition the reported kneeling ability of 75 patients was checked by clinical examination.

Results: Preoperatively only 2% of all patients could kneel with PFR group being more able than the others (UKR 0%, TKR 0% and PFR 6%). In all groups the kneeling ability was better one year following replacement than preoperatively (23% of UKR, 18% of TKR and 9% of PFR) being able to kneel with little or no difficulty.

Conclusions: No form of arthroplasty used resulted in good kneeling ability, though this function was always improved particularly by UKR. Good range of movement and younger age appeared to correlate with better kneeling ability but many patients thought they had been told not to kneel and reported less ability than they demonstrated on examination. Instruction to avoid kneeling seems unnecessary.

The objective of this study is to determine the knee joint forces when rising from a kneeling position. We have developed a new type of knee prosthesis which is capable of attaining Japanese style sitting. To run the simulations and experiments needed to assess the performance of this prosthesis, it is necessary to know what forces act on the knee during deep flexion. Because these data are lacking, we created a 2D mathematical model of the lower leg to help determine knee joint forces during deep flexion. Healthy subjects of ten males (age of 25±4years, height of 170.3±9.1cm, and weight of 67.0±22.2kg) and five females (25±3years, 161±7.1cm, 47.7±6.2kg) participated in the experiment. Ground reaction force and joints angles were measured using a force plate and a motion recording system respectively. The collected data were entered into our mathematical model, and the muscle forces and the knee joint forces were calculated. To verify our model, we first used it to run simulation of middle and high flexions of the knee joint. In vivo data for these actions are available in the literature, and the results from our simulation were in good agreement with these data. We then collected the data and run simulation when rising from a kneeling position under the conditions shown in Fig. 1. They were a) double leg rising (both legs are aligned) without using the arms, b) ditto but using the arms, c) single leg rising (legs are in the front and the rear respectively) without using the arms, and d) ditto but using the arms. We obtained the following results. The statistics of the maximum values on the single knee joint for each condition were; a) F_max=5.1±0.4 [BW: (force on the knee joint)/(body weight)] at knee flexion angle of Q=140±8°, b) F_max=3.2±0.9[BW] at Q=90±10°, c) F_max-d=5.4±0.5[BW] at Q_d=62±20° for the dominant leg and F_max-s=3.0±0.5[BW] at Q_s=138±6° for the supporting leg respectively, and d) F_max-d=3.9±1.5[BW] at Q_d=70±17° for the dominant, and F_max-s=2.1±0.5 [BW] at Q_s=130±11° for the supporting. We may conclude that the single leg rising should be recommended since the maximum knee joint force did not become large as long as the knee was at deep flexion. The values introduced in this study could be used to assess the strength of the knee prosthesis at deep flexion. To obtain more realistic values of the joint forces, it is necessary to determine the ratio of the forces exerted by the mono-articular and the bi-articular joint muscles.

Purpose and Background. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WRMSD) can affect 56–80% of physiotherapists. Patient handling is reported as a significant risk factor for developing WRMSD with the back most frequently injured. Physiotherapists perform therapeutic handling to manually assist and facilitate patients’ movement to aid rehabilitation, which can increase physiotherapists risk of experiencing high forces during patient handling. Methods and Results. A descriptive cross-sectional study was completed to explore and quantitatively measure the movement of ten physiotherapists during patient handling, over one working day, in a neurological setting. A wearable 3-dimensional motion analysis system, Xsens (Movella, Henderson, NV), was used to measure physiotherapist movement and postures in the ward setting during patient treatment sessions. The resulting joint angles were reported descriptively and compared against a frequently used ergonomic assessment tool, the Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA). Physiotherapists adopted four main positions during patient handling tasks: 1) kneeling; 2) half-kneeling; 3) standing; and 4) sitting. Eight patient handling tasks were identified and described: 1) Lie-to-sit; 2) sit-to-lie; 3) sit-to-stand; facilitation of 4) upper limb; 5) lower limb; 6) trunk; and 7) standing treatments; and 8) walking facilitation. Kneeling and sitting positions demonstrated greater neck extension and greater lumbosacral flexion during treatments which scores highly with the RULA. Conclusion. This research identified that patient treatment tasks were more often performed in kneeling or sitting positions than standing. Current moving and handling guidance teaches moving and handling in a standing position; loading and stresses experienced by the physiotherapists may differ in sitting or kneeling positions. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. None. This work has been presented as a poster at the CSP conference Glasgow 2023

Introduction: Activities that require extreme hip movement can dislocate hip implants in the early post operative phase. The aim of this study was to assess the movement of the hip using four different techniques to retrieve an object from the floor. Methods: An electromagnetic tracker was used to measure hip movement during these retrieval techniques:-. Flexing forward to pick up an object between the feet. Standing to the side of the object and bending. Squatting to pick up an object between the feet. Kneeling on one knee to pick up. Measurements were taken from 50 hips in 25 normal subjects aged 21 to 61. Sensors were attached over the iliac crest and the mid-shaft of the lateral thigh. Data was collected as each technique was repeated 3 times. The tracker recorded hip flexion and rotation data at 10 hertz, with an accuracy of 0.15 degree. Results: For each of the four techniques the respective mean (SD) movements were:-. Flexion: 75.8(28.6), 79.2(27.2), 87.5(29.7) and 30.4(17.3). Extension: −0.2(2.5), 0.5(1.9), 0.1(2.3) and −0.4(3.3). Internal rotation: 2.9(5.2), 1.4(3.4), 10.1(9.9) and 8.5(6.9). External rotation: 12.6(10.3), 20.1(12.1), 11.9(6.5) and 7.3(7.1). Kneeling had significantly less flexion and external rotation than all the other techniques (paired t-test, P< < 0.001). Discussion: Flexion and external rotation were the most significant movements for each technique. The movements with the least and most flexion were kneeling (30.40) and squatting (87.50). The movement with the least and most external rotation were kneeling (7.30) and side pick up (20.10). Kneeling has the least amount of movement, therefore, it minimises the risk of dislocation when retrieving an object from the floor

Introduction. Management of the patellofemoral surface in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a topic of debate. Incidence of anterior knee pain and incidence of repeat operation have been the focus of several recent meta-analyses, however there is little recent data regarding patients” subjective ability to kneel effectively after TKA. The purpose of this study was to compare patient reported outcomes, including reported ability to kneel, after total knee arthroplasty with and without patellar resurfacing. Methods. Retrospective chart review of 84 consecutive patients who underwent primary TKA with patella resurfacing (56 knees) or without patella resurfacing (28 knees) having a minimum of 2.5 year follow up was performed. Oxford knee scores (OKS), visual analog pain scores (VAS), and questionnaires regarding ability to kneel were evaluated from both groups. Inability to kneel was defined as patients reporting inability or extreme difficulty with kneeling. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to determine normality of data. Mann Whitney U test was used to compare the OKS and VAS between groups. Chi square test was used to compare kneeling ability between groups. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 23 (IBM, Aramonk, NY). Results. The 84 patients included 26 males and 58 females with average age 66.5 (range 46–91). Average follow up was 51 months (range 30–85). There was no significant difference in the percentage of female patients (64% vs 79%), age (67.8 vs 63.8), or reoperation rate (4% vs 7%) between the resurfaced and non-resurfaced groups. There was significantly longer follow up in the non-resurfaced group (57 vs 48 months). There was no statistically significant difference between the resurfacing and non-resurfacing group in terms of OKS (39 vs 38) or VAS (2.5 vs 3.0). However, those patients who did not have their patellofemoral joint resurfaced were more likely to report ability to kneel when compared to the resurfacing group (64% vs 39%, p=0.035). Kneeling ability was not correlated with duration of follow up, patient age or VAS. Kneeling ability was higher in female patients (57%) than males (27%), p=0.017. Discussion. There is concern for increased anterior knee pain and reoperation in patients whose patellae are not resurfaced. However, their failure to imnprove after revision to a resurfaced patella has left some room for depate as to whether or not the lack of resurfacing is the cause of their problems. This study did not show any increase in knee pain or reoperation between groups. There was an increased subjective ability to kneel in paients whose patellae were not resurfaced. This may have implications for the subset of paeitnts whose work or hobbies may require kneeling. There have been previous reports that subjective ability to kneel and actual ability may differ, and also that kneeling can be taught by a therapist. Our data also shows that female gender had a higher reported rate of kneeling

Aims. Modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses are designed to restore near normal kinematics including high flexion. Kneeling is a high flexion, kinematically demanding activity after TKA. The debate about design choice has not yet been informed by six-degrees-of-freedom in vivo kinematics. This prospective randomized clinical trial compared kneeling kinematics in three TKA designs. Methods. In total, 68 patients were randomized to either a posterior stabilized (PS-FB), cruciate-retaining (CR-FB), or rotating platform (CR-RP) design. Of these patients, 64 completed a minimum one year follow-up. Patients completed full-flexion kneeling while being imaged using single-plane fluoroscopy. Kinematics were calculated by registering the 3D implant models onto 2D-dynamic fluoroscopic images and exported for analysis. Results. CR-FB designs had significantly lower maximal flexion (mean 116° (SD 2.1°)) compared to CR-RP (123° (SD 1.6°)) and PS-FB (125° (SD 2.1°)). The PS-FB design displayed a more posteriorly positioned femur throughout flexion. Furthermore, the CR-RP femur was more externally rotated throughout kneeling. Finally, individual patient kinematics showed high degrees of variability within all designs. Conclusion. The increased maximal flexion found in the PS-FB and CR-RP designs were likely achieved in different ways. The PS-FB design uses a cam-post to hold the femur more posteriorly preventing posterior impingement. The external rotation within the CR-RP design was surprising and hasn’t previously been reported. It is likely due to the polyethylene bearing being decoupled from flexion. The findings of this study provide insights into the function of different knee arthroplasty designs in the context during deep kneeling and provide clinicians with a more kinematically informed choice for implant selection and may allow improved management of patients' functional expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):105–112

The Oxford knee score (OKS) is a validated and widely accepted disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure, but there is limited evidence regarding any long-term trends in the score. We reviewed 5600 individual OKS questionnaires (1547 patients) from a prospectively-collected knee replacement database, to determine the trends in OKS over a ten-year period following total knee replacement. The mean OKS pre-operatively was 19.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.8 to 20.2). The maximum post-operative OKS was observed at two years (mean score 34.4 (95% CI 33.7 to 35.2)), following which a gradual but significant decline was observed through to the ten-year assessment (mean score 30.1 (95% CI 29.1 to 31.1)) (p < 0.001). A similar trend was observed for most of the individual OKS components (p < 0.001). Kneeling ability initially improved in the first year but was then followed by rapid deterioration (p < 0.001). Pain severity exhibited the greatest improvement, although residual pain was reported in over two-thirds of patients post-operatively, and peak improvement in the night pain component did not occur until year four. Post-operative OKS was lower for women (p < 0.001), those aged < 60 years (p < 0.003) and those with a body mass index > 35 kg/m. 2. (p < 0.014), although similar changes in scores were observed. This information may assist surgeons in advising patients of their expected outcomes, as well as providing a comparative benchmark for evaluating longer-term outcomes following knee replacement. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:45–51