Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(13): 1429-1435
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709675
Original Article

Effect of Manipulation under Anesthesia of the First Knee in Staged Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty on Clinical Outcome and Satisfaction

Jung-Won Lim  ‡   *
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, South Korea
,
Yong-Beom Park  ‡   *
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, South Korea
,
Dong-Hoon Lee
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, South Korea
,
Han-Jun Lee
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, South Korea
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate whether manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) affect clinical outcome including range of motion (ROM) and patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is hypothesized that MUA improves clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after primary TKA. This retrospective study analyzed 97 patients who underwent staged bilateral primary TKA. MUA of knee flexion more than 120 degrees was performed a week after index surgery just before operation of the opposite site. The first knees with MUA were classified as the MUA group and the second knees without MUA as the control group. ROM, Knee Society Knee Score, Knee Society Functional Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score, and patient satisfaction were assessed. Postoperative flexion was significantly greater in the MUA group during 6 months follow-up (6 weeks: 111.6 vs. 99.8 degrees, p < 0.001; 3 months: 115.9 vs. 110.2 degrees, p = 0.001; 6 months: 120.2 vs. 117.0 degrees, p = 0.019). Clinical outcomes also showed similar results with knee flexion during 2 years follow-up. Patient satisfaction was significantly high in the MUA group during 12 months (3 months: 80.2 vs. 71.5, p < 0.001; 6 months: 85.8 vs. 79.8, p < 0.001; 12 months: 86.1 vs. 83.9, p < 0.001; 24 months: 86.6 vs. 85.5, p = 0.013). MUA yielded improvement of clinical outcomes including ROM, and patient satisfaction, especially in the early period after TKA. MUA in the first knee could be taken into account to obtain early recovery and to improve patient satisfaction in staged bilateral TKA.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - staged bilateral primary TKA - manipulation under anesthesia - clinical outcome - patient satisfaction

* These authors contributed equally to this work.




Publication History

Received: 28 June 2019

Accepted: 01 March 2020

Article published online:
24 April 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Mugnai R, Zambianchi F, Digennaro V. et al. Clinical outcome is not affected by total knee arthroplasty alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3339-3345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Laubenthal KN, Smidt GL, Kettelkamp DB. A quantitative analysis of knee motion during activities of daily living. Phys Ther 1972; 52 (01) 34-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lau SKK, Chiu KY. Use of continuous passive motion after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16 (03) 336-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gu A, Michalak AJ, Cohen JS, Almeida ND, McLawhorn AS, Sculco PK. Efficacy of manipulation under anesthesia for stiffness following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (05) 1598-1605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kornuijt A, Das D, Sijbesma T, de Vries L, van der Weegen W. Manipulation under anesthesia following total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of literature. Musculoskelet Surg 2018; 102 (03) 223-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Yoo JH, Oh JC, Oh HC, Park SH. Manipulation under anesthesia for stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2015; 27 (04) 233-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Issa K, Banerjee S, Kester MA, Khanuja HS, Delanois RE, Mont MA. The effect of timing of manipulation under anesthesia to improve range of motion and functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (16) 1349-1357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mauerhan DR, Mokris JG, Ly A, Kiebzak GM. Relationship between length of stay and manipulation rate after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1998; 13 (08) 896-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mamarelis G, Sunil-Kumar KH, Khanduja V. Timing of manipulation under anaesthesia for stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2015; 3 (20) 316
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Namba RS, Inacio M. Early and late manipulation improve flexion after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (06, Suppl 2): 58-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dzaja I, Vasarhelyi EM, Lanting BA. et al. Knee manipulation under anaesthetic following total knee arthroplasty: a matched cohort design. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (12) 1640-1644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kim J, Nelson CL, Lotke PA. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. Prevalence of the complication and outcomes of revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (07) 1479-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Glaser DL, Kaplan FS. Osteoporosis. Definition and clinical presentation. Spine 1997; 22 (24) 12S-16S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Fox JL, Poss R. The role of manipulation following total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1981; 63 (03) 357-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15 (12) 1833-1840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Singer AJ, Thode Jr HC. Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog satisfaction scale. Acad Emerg Med 1998; 5 (10) 1007-1011
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ritter MA, Harty LD, Davis KE, Meding JB, Berend ME. Predicting range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Clustering, log-linear regression, and regression tree analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85 (07) 1278-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nerhus TK, Heir S, Thornes E, Madsen JE, Ekeland A. Time-dependent improvement in functional outcome following LCS rotating platform knee replacement. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (06) 727-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Devers BN, Conditt MA, Jamieson ML, Driscoll MD, Noble PC, Parsley BS. Does greater knee flexion increase patient function and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (02) 178-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ha C-W, Park Y-B, Song Y-S, Kim J-H, Park Y-G. Increased range of motion is important for functional outcome and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty in Asian patients. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (06) 1199-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Thambiah MD, Nathan S, Seow BZ, Liang S, Lingaraj K. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: an Asian perspective. Singapore Med J 2015; 56 (05) 259-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Baker PN, Rushton S, Jameson SS, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan DJ. Patient satisfaction with total knee replacement cannot be predicted from pre-operative variables alone: a cohort study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (10) 1359-1365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Miner AL, Lingard EA, Wright EA, Sledge CB, Katz JN. Kinemax Outcomes Group. Knee range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: how important is this as an outcome measure?. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (03) 286-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Newman ET, Herschmiller TA, Attarian DE, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP, Wellman SS. Risk factors, outcomes, and timing of manipulation under anesthesia after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (01) 245-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bawa HS, Wera GD, Kraay MJ, Marcus RE, Goldberg VM. Predictors of range of motion in patients undergoing manipulation after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (01) 258-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yeoh D, Nicolaou N, Goddard R. et al. Manipulation under anaesthesia post total knee replacement: long term follow up. Knee 2012; 19 (04) 329-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Yercan HS, Sugun TS, Bussiere C, Ait Si Selmi T, Davies A, Neyret P. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence, management and outcomes. Knee 2006; 13 (02) 111-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Park MS, Kim SJ, Chung CY, Choi IH, Lee SH, Lee KM. Statistical consideration for bilateral cases in orthopaedic research. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (08) 1732-1737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar