2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.03.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The flexion gap preparation does not disturb the modified gap technique in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

4
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The pattern of joint gap kinematics after implantation in group 1 was very similar to that in PS TKA using measured resection technique [9]. Even if the sizes of extension and flexion joint gaps were prepared equally before implantation using gap balancing technique [8], midflexion laxity was still observed after implantation (group 2). To minimize the midflexion laxity after implantation, the flexion joint gap should be made smaller than the extension joint gap before implantation (group 3).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The pattern of joint gap kinematics after implantation in group 1 was very similar to that in PS TKA using measured resection technique [9]. Even if the sizes of extension and flexion joint gaps were prepared equally before implantation using gap balancing technique [8], midflexion laxity was still observed after implantation (group 2). To minimize the midflexion laxity after implantation, the flexion joint gap should be made smaller than the extension joint gap before implantation (group 3).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 52%
“…These mechanisms reflect the design feature of the component and allow for the reproduction of joint kinematics after implantation of the components. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities of this device with 20 subjects have been previously reported [8]. The mean absolute value of the difference between 2 repeated measurements by 1 observer was 0.2 mm (95% confidence interval, − 0.1 to 0.4 mm) and 0.1°(95% confidence interval, − 0.2°to 0.4°).…”
Section: Contents Lists Available At Sciencedirectmentioning
confidence: 66%
See 3 more Smart Citations