4.7 Article

The effect of hamstring tightness on intraoperative extension gap in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83221-0

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study revealed that the bilateral popliteal angle (BPA) plays a significant role in determining the intraoperative extension gap (EG) for patients undergoing the same degree of bone resection. Smaller BPAs were associated with larger EG in osteoarthritis patients, making it a predictable factor for EG in TKA surgeries.
This study aimed to determine the factors related to intraoperative extension gap (EG) in patients who underwent posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A total of 106 TKAs in 84 patients were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients who underwent the same method of bone resection were included consecutively. Bilateral popliteal angle (BPA) was used as an indicator of hamstring tightness. EG and extension space angle were measured using an offset type tensor. The associations between patient variables and EG were analyzed using multivariable linear regression and Pearson's correlation coefficients. The average EG was 12.9 +/- 2.1 mm, and the average extension space angle was 2.8 degrees +/- 3.2 degrees. BPA was greater than flexion contracture in most cases (94.3%), and no difference was found in only six cases (5.7%). According to multivariable linear regression analysis which was conducted after modifying the BPA into a categorical variable by 5 degrees, EG was correlated with BPA (p<0.001). Pearson's correlation coefficient between EG and BPA was - 0.674 (p<0.001). No other factors were significantly correlated with intraoperative EG. The present study found that popliteal angle is a different entity from flexion contracture, and that it is a predictable factor for EG in osteoarthritis patients. Smaller BPAs led to larger EG in patients who underwent the same degree of bone resection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据