Gait analysis after total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of posterior cruciate retention and substitution

Yoshinori Ishii, Kazuhiro Terajima, Yoshio Koga, Hideaki E. Takahashi, Joan E. Bechtold, Ramon B. Gustilo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

58 Scopus citations

Abstract

The objective of this study was to measure three-dimensional knee motion during gait in patients with total knee replacements which either retained the posterior cruciate ligament (n = 11), or required sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament and replacement of its function with a posterior stabilizing articular surface (n = 9). Clinically meaningful translations (anterior and posterior, medial and lateral, proximal and distal) and rotations (flexion and extension, internal and external rotation, abduction and adduction) were measured using an instrumented spatial linkage. Although patients from both groups were able to achieve passive full extension and a minimum of 95°flexion, some of their translations and rotations during free speed walking were consistently less than those in a group of healthy controls. Motion during the swing phase of gait was similar for both knee replacement groups. However, abduction and adduction and proximal and distal translation were larger (but neither difference was significant) for the patients with implants with a posterior stabilizing surface, which suggests that the stabilizing surface may not reliably provide as much stability in these directions as does retention of the posterior cruciate ligament.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)310-317
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Orthopaedic Science
Volume3
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1998

Keywords

  • Gait analysis
  • Posterior cruciate ligament retention
  • Posterior cruciate ligament substitution
  • Total knee arthroplasty

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Gait analysis after total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of posterior cruciate retention and substitution'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this