1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Postoperative Continuous Passive Motion Does Not Improve the Range of Movement Achieved After Manipulation Under Anesthetic for Stiffness in Total Knee Replacement

      research-article
      , DPhil, FRCS a , b , , , BSc, MCSP, SRP a , , FRCS a , , MD a , , FRCS a , , PhD, FRCS a , , FRCS a , , FRCS a
      Arthroplasty Today
      Elsevier
      CPM, MUA, TKA, Stiffness, ROM

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Stiffness is a common complication following total knee arthroplasty. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) is an intervention that can potentially improve range of motion (ROM). Continuous passive motion (CPM) therapy has been utilized to enhance post-MUA ROM, but its effectiveness remains debated. This study assesses whether CPM therapy after MUA results in superior ROM outcomes compared to MUA alone.

          Methods

          A retrospective analysis included patients undergoing MUA for stiff primary total knee arthroplasty between 2017 and 2022. Demographics and ROM data were collected. Patients were in 2 groups: those who received inpatient CPM post-MUA and those who received day-case MUA alone. Complications and further interventions were noted.

          Results

          Of 126 patients, 39 underwent MUA only (day-case group), and 87 received CPM and MUA (inpatient group). Mean preoperative ROM was 69.4° (standard deviation [SD]:18.0°) and 73.9° (SD: 18.1°) for inpatient and day-case groups, respectively. Mean post-MUA ROM improved by 39.4° (SD: 17.7°) and 25.5° (SD: 11.1°) inpatient groups and day-case, respectively. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 63.7% (40.8%) and 67.0% (47.5%) inpatient and day-case groups, respectively.

          Conclusions

          This study found no advantage in the routine use of CPM post-MUA for stiff total knee replacement patients, suggesting it may not provide sustained ROM improvements compared to MUA alone. Cost-effectiveness and patient selection merit further investigation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today--has anything changed after 10 years?

          The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and cause of failure after total knee arthroplasty and compare the results with those reported by our similar investigation conducted 10 years ago. A total of 781 revision TKAs performed at our institution over the past 10 years were identified. The most common failure mechanisms were: loosening (39.9%), infection (27.4%), instability (7.5%), periprosthetic fracture (4.7%), and arthrofibrosis (4.5%). Infection was the most common failure mechanism for early revision (<2 years from primary) and aseptic loosening was the most common reason for late revision. Polyethylene (PE) wear was no longer the major cause of failure. Compared to our previous report, the percentage of revisions performed for polyethylene wear, instability, arthrofibrosis, malalignment and extensor mechanism deficiency has decreased.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?

            Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and 2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%), arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years. With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations. Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively, and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence, management and outcomes.

              We investigated the prevalence of stiffness after total knee arthroplasty, and the results of the treatment options in our practice. Between 1987 and 2003, we performed 1188 posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties. The prevalence of stiffness was 5.3%, at a mean follow-up 31 months postoperatively. The average age was 71 years (range, 54-88). The patients with painful stiffness were treated by two modalities: manipulation and secondary surgery. In the manipulation group (n:46), the mean range of motion improved from 67 degrees before manipulation to 117 degrees afterward. This improvement was maintained at final follow-up as 114 degrees. There was no significant difference between the motion, immediately after manipulation and at final follow-up. However, motion at final follow-up was better for those manipulated early to those done later (p=0.021). In the secondary surgery group (n:10), the mean gain in motion was 49 degrees at final follow-up and average pain score was found 43. Patellar problems--component loosening and clunk syndromes--were found in 4 patients (40%). Early manipulation gives better gain of motion than done later and our patients had not lost flexion during follow-up. The patella should always be evaluated in every stiff arthroplasty. In our opinion, patellar problems are a good prognostic factor for the success of revision surgery and open arthrolysis does not correct a limited flexion arc, but it does relieve pain. Arthroscopic release is not reliable for severely stiff knees and we prefer to perform it in less painful and moderately stiff knees within 3 to 6 months after operation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Arthroplast Today
                Arthroplast Today
                Arthroplasty Today
                Elsevier
                2352-3441
                03 June 2024
                June 2024
                03 June 2024
                : 27
                : 101397
                Affiliations
                [a ]Nottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
                [b ]Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                Author notes
                []Corresponding author. Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham City Hospital, Hucknall Rd, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK. Tel.: +0115 969 1169. b.h.vanduren@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2352-3441(24)00082-7 101397
                10.1016/j.artd.2024.101397
                11180303
                38882466
                ece67fff-5bee-4758-b1b5-84b9fda647d0
                © 2024 The Authors

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 19 December 2023
                : 25 March 2024
                : 2 April 2024
                Categories
                Original Research

                cpm,mua,tka,stiffness,rom
                cpm, mua, tka, stiffness, rom

                Comments

                Comment on this article