Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 27, 2025
Author Spotlight: Understanding the Mechanism of Tuina Manipulation in Rats
Published on: June 30, 2023
Manipulation under anesthesia as a therapy option for postoperative knee stiffness: a retrospective matched-pair
Daiwei Yao1, Frederik Bruns2, Sarah Ettinger3
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in Diakovere Annastift, Hannover Medical School (MHH), Anna-von-Borries-Straße 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany. daiwei.yao@diakovere.de.
Introduction:
Due to demographic changes, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most frequently performed orthopedic surgeries. Therapies for associated postoperative complications, such as postoperative knee stiffness (PKS), are becoming increasingly important. The aim of this retrospective matched-pair analysis was to evaluate mid-term-results following manipulation under anesthesia (MUA).
Materials And Methods:
Fifty-one patients with PKS were evaluated and 51 matched-pair patients without PKS after primary TKA were chosen for the control group. In addition to the range of motion, the functionality was recorded by Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and Mc Masters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Short-Form-12 Questionnaire (SF-12). Experience of pain was mapped using a 10-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and the analgesic requirement was mapped using the WHO step scheme. A final follow-up examination was conducted approximately three years after TKA. To evaluate potential risk factors for the development of PKS, TKA alignment was measured via postoperative X-ray images.
Results:
Improvement of the average knee flexion of 35.7° and total flexion of 107.4° was detected in PKS patients after MUA. The flexion of the control group was 112.4°; no significant between-group difference was present regarding prosthesis type, sex, age and BMI. Regarding KSS, WOMAC, and SF-12, the MUA cohort achieved statistically-relevant lower overall scores than the control group, p = 0.006, p = 0.005, p = 0.001, respectively. Significantly higher experiences of pain and a higher need for analgesics in MUA patients were reported (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). Radiological evaluation of the prosthesis alignment did not show any differences between the two groups.
Conclusions:
MUA can improve mobility after PKS, whereby MUA seemed to be a functional therapy option for PKS. Compared to the control group, the MUA group showed lower functional values and an increased experience of pain. A correlation between prosthesis malalignment and MUA could not be detected radiologically. Further studies are necessary to investigate the reasons for PKS.
