Risk factors of hyperextension and its relationship with the clinical outcomes following mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty
To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of postoperative hyperextension after mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and its clinical outcomes.
Materials and methods
This retrospective case–control study included 387 knees of primary TKA patients after a 5-year follow-up. The clinical outcomes and radiographs including posterior condylar offset (PCO), femur and tibial slope angle and its discrepancy were evaluated. The patients were divided into two groups (group 1: non-hyperextension, group 2: hyperextension). An extension greater than 5° measured using a goniometer at the final follow-up was defined as hyperextension. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed.
Overall, 43 knees (11.1%) with hyperextension were observed at the last follow-up. There was no significant difference between groups in terms of the clinical outcomes although the functional scores were worse in group 2. There was no significant difference in the postoperative radiologic evaluation except for a change in PCO (group 1 vs. group 2; − 0.2 mm ± 3.8 vs. − 2.4 mm ± 3.0, p = 0.003), distal femoral resection slope angle (− 9.1° ± 2.1 vs. − 12.1° ± 1.7, p < 0.000) and discrepancy of the slope angle (0.3° ± 4.5 vs. − 3.6° ± 3.9, p < 0.000). The change in PCO [odds ratio (OR) 0.86, p = 0.012], discrepancy of the slope angle (OR 0.8136, p = 0.000) and the preoperative mechanical femorotibial angle (OR 1.09, p = 0.003) were associated with hyperextension.
Mobile-bearing TKA with hyperextension over 5° showed worse functional outcomes at the mid-term follow-up, even though no serious complications were observed. Care should be taken to maintain the posterior condylar offset and to match the resection angles in femur and tibia due to the risk of hyperextension and worse functional outcomes.
Level of evidence
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty Mobile bearing Hyperextension Posterior condylar offset Slope discrepancy
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Chung-Ang University Hospital (no.: 1702-006-16037) and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki.
- 2.Woon JTK, Zeng ISL, Calliess T, Windhagen H, Ettinger M, Waterson HB, Toms AD, Young SW (2018) Outcome of kinematic alignment using patient-specific instrumentation versus mechanical alignment in TKA: a meta-analysis and subgroup analysis of randomised trials. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(9):1293–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Parratte S, Pagnano MW (2008) Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90(1):184–194Google Scholar
- 16.Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ, Dalessio J (2002) Twenty-year evaluation of the New Jersey LCS rotating platform knee replacement. J Knee Surg 15(2):84–89Google Scholar
- 21.Brosseau L, Balmer S, Tousignant M, O'Sullivan JP, Goudreault C, Goudreault M, Gringras S (2001) Intra- and intertester reliability and criterion validity of the parallelogram and universal goniometers for measuring maximum active knee flexion and extension of patients with knee restrictions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82(3):396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ewald FC (1989) The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
- 37.Vollner F, Fischer J, Weber M, Greimel F, Benditz A, Renkawitz T, Grifka J, Craiovan B (2019) Weakening of the knee ligament complex due to sequential medial release in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 8(10):019–03181Google Scholar