The utility of bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty.

Abstract

BackgroundWe describe the features of modern and historical bicruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implants compared with other TKA implant designs, reviewing kinematics, proprioception, operative technique, and clinical results.MethodsWe performed a review based on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane databases from January 1990 to April 2016 using combinations of the following keywords: “bicruciate-retaining arthroplasty,” “bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty,” “bicruciate-retaining TKA,” “kinematics,” “knee kinematics,” and “TKA kinematics.”ResultsFour studies have supported the notion that preservation of both cruciate ligaments in TKA preserves more “normal” knee kinematics. BCR implants provide greater proprioceptive performance when compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA implants. However, the operative implantation is more challenging with BCR TKAs, requiring the surgeon to take additional precautions. Overall, there did not seem to be a significant difference in short-term clinical outcomes between the BCR and CR implants.ConclusionsThe utility of BCR TKA is still debatable. The literature has not shown clear indications and guidelines for the value and use of this implant. Although kinematics have been shown to mirror the native knee more closely, the clinical outcomes of BCR vs CR TKAs do not differ significantly. Moreover, additional care must be taken when inserting a BCR implant. The anterior cruciate ligament exploration and preservation is more challenging and certain preparation and precautions must take place. Overall, we have not found that BCR implants are significantly superior to CR implants with regards to short term clinical outcomes despite the BCR TKA having improved kinematics and proprioception.