4.2 Article

A comparison of balance and fall risk in patients with unilateral and bilateral total knee arthroplasty

Journal

JOURNAL OF BACK AND MUSCULOSKELETAL REHABILITATION
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 1043-1051

Publisher

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-210127

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty; fall risk; balance; knee function; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Balance and fall risk were improved after TKA in patients with knee osteoarthritis, but the risk of falling still persists.
BACKGROUND: Static or dynamic postural control cannot be fully restored in patients with knee osteoarthritis, even after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which may contribute to an increased risk of falls in the elderly. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate balance and the fall risk before and after TKA in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported and performance-based activity limitations. METHODS: A total of 45 patients were separated into two groups as unilateral TKA (UTKA, n = 24) and bilateral TKA (BTKA, n = 21) groups. All the patients received standard postoperative physical therapy for 3 months. Balance and fall risk (Biodex Balance System SD), patient-reported and performance-based functionality (WOMAC, 30-second chair-stand test, 9-step stair climbing test and 40-meter fast-paced walk test) and Short Form-12 (SF-12) were evaluated at preoperatively, and at 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was no difference between the groups in postoperative fall risk and balance ( p > 0.05). The BTKA group obtained better results in the sit-to-stand test and SF-12 physical dimension (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: UTKA and BTKA interventions and the standard postoperative rehabilitation were seen to improve balance and quality of life, and reduce the fall risk, patient-reported and performance-based activity limitations. However, despite improvements in balance, the risk of falling persists.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available