Cruciate-retaining Implants Research Articles

Effect of posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining implants on three-dimensional kinematic characteristics after total knee arthroplasty

Effect of posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining implants on three-dimensional kinematic characteristics after total knee arthroplasty

Oxidation and Damage Mechanisms of Second-Generation Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Tibial Inserts

BackgroundAfter clinical introduction in 2005, sequentially annealed, highly cross-linked polyethylene (SA HXLPE) was studied for retrievals with short implantation times; however, long-term follow-ups are lacking. The objective of this study was to examine and compare the revision reasons, damage mechanisms, and oxidation indices of SA HXLPE and conventional gamma inert–sterilized (Gamma Inert) ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene tibial inserts implanted for >5 years. MethodsThere were 74 total knee arthroplasty tibial inserts (46 SA HXLPEs, 28 Gamma Inerts) implanted for >5 years (mean 7 ± 2 years) retrieved as part of a multicenter retrieval program. Cruciate-retaining implants comprised 44% of the SA HXLPEs and 14% of the Gamma Inerts. Patient factors and revision reasons were collected from revision operating notes. A semiquantitative scoring method was used to assess surface damage mechanisms. Oxidation was measured using Fourier transform infrared microscopy according to American Society for Testing and Materials 2102. Differences between cohorts were assessed with Mann–Whitney U-tests. ResultsLoosening (Gamma Inert: 17 of 28, SA HXLPE: 15 of 46) and instability (Gamma Inert: 6 of 28, SA HXLPE: 15 of 46) were the most common revision reasons for both cohorts. The most prevalent surface damage mechanisms were burnishing, pitting, and scratching, with burnishing of the condyles being higher in Gamma Inert components (P = .022). Mean oxidation was higher in the SA HXLPE inserts at the articulating surface (P = .002) and anterior-posterior faces (P = .023). No difference was observed at the backside surface (P = .060). ConclusionsRevision reasons and surface damage mechanisms were comparable in the Gamma Inert and SA cohorts. Further studies are needed to continue to assess the in vivo damage and clinical relevance, if any, of oxidation in SA HXLPE over longer implantation times, particularly for implants implanted for more than 10 years.

Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients Who Have Skeletal Dysplasia: A Center’s Experience With a Mean 9-Year Follow-Up

BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients who have skeletal dysplasia (SD) is a technically challenging surgery due to deformity, joint contracture, and associated comorbidities. Patients presenting with this condition have traditionally been treated with conservative measures, leading to poor outcomes. The aim of this study was to follow-up on patients who had SD following TKA, specifically with regards to clinical outcomes. MethodsA total of 31 knees (22 patients) with SD that had undergone TKA in our institution were included in our study. The mean follow-up from index surgery was 110.3 months (range: 20 to 291). The type of dysplasia, implant used, and clinical outcomes with patient-reported outcome measures are presented. ResultsThere were 8 patients (36.3%) who had a diagnosis of achondroplasia, followed by multiple epiphyseal dysplasia (31.8%) and spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia (22.7%). There were 14 men and 8 women who had a mean age of 51 years (range: 28 to 73). Custom implants were required in 12 cases (38.7%), custom jigs were used in 6 cases (19.4%), and robotic-assisted surgery was used in 2 (6.5%) TKAs. Hinged prostheses were used in 17 cases (54.8%), posterior-stabilized in 9 (29.0%), and cruciate-retaining implants in 5 (16.1%). There was 1 patient who sustained an intraoperative medial tibial plateau fracture treated with concomitant open reduction and internal fixation. There was 1 revision that occurred during the follow-up period with a patella resurfacing for continued anterior knee pain. Postoperatively, Oxford Knee Scores improved on average by 12.2 points. The 10-year and 20-year all-cause revision-free survival was 96.8, respectively. ConclusionsDespite the technical challenges and complexity associated with this unique patient cohort, we demonstrated excellent implant survivorship and clinical outcomes post-TKA with mid-term to long-term follow-up of more than 20 years. We recommend preoperative cross-sectional imaging for precise planning and implant templating with multidisciplinary team decision-making. Despite our results, functional outcomes remain inferior to primary arthroplasty within the general population, although we still recommend this treatment modality to appropriately counseled patients. Level of EvidenceIII.

Prior Patellectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty Survivorship and Reported Outcomes

BackgroundIn the setting of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), prior patellectomy historically prompted the use of increased constraint implants, specifically posterior-stabilized (PS) designs. However, modern case series have reported similar outcomes utilizing cruciate-retaining (CR) implants. The primary outcome of this study was to compare implant retention rates between these 2 implant designs in prior patellectomy patients. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of patient-reported outcome scores and cause for revision. MethodsA comprehensive systematic review was performed using Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Boolean operator search terms included “patellectomy AND (arthroplasty) OR (replacement).” Case reports, review articles, < 2 years of follow-up, and studies in which the implant design could not be ascertained were excluded. An initial screening of titles and abstracts for inclusion was performed, followed by a full manuscript review of eligible articles. Single-data extraction was performed, followed by subsequent statistical analysis. ResultsA total of 9 studies (209 knees) met the inclusion criteria. The average time from patellectomy to TKA was 16.1 years. While all patients had significant improvement in functional outcomes, CR implants displayed proportionally greater improvement in Knee Society Scores compared to PS implants (+108 versus +98%, P ≤ .001). However, there was a significantly greater rate of revision in the CR cohort compared to PS (18.6 versus 2.6%, P = .002). ConclusionsPrior patellectomy patients undergoing TKA have significant improvements in patient-reported functional outcomes and high midterm retention rates. While CR implant designs portend a potentially greater improvement in functional outcomes, they also have a greater risk for revision than their PS implant counterparts. However, contemporary implant designs and operative techniques likely render revision rates equivocal between CR and PS implants in postpatellectomy patients.

Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements: a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry.

While registry studies have suggested a higher risk of revision for posterior-stabilized (PS) compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacements (TKR) using cement, it is unknown whether this is also the case for uncemented TKR. We aimed to compare the revision rates of PS and CR designs in patients receiving primary uncemented TKR. Data from the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) was analyzed, comprising 12,226 uncemented primary CR TKRs and 750 uncemented PS TKRs registered between 2007 and 2022. Competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare revision rates, risks of revision, and reasons for revision between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the risk, concerning the 5 most commonly used implants and performing hospitals for each group. Uncemented PS TKRs had higher 10-year revision rates for any reason and aseptic loosening (6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-9.2 and 3.9%, CI 2.6-6.7) compared with uncemented CR TKRs (4.2%, CI 3.8-4.7 and 1.4%, CI 1.2-1.7). PS TKRs were 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to be revised for any reason and aseptic loosening, respectively. These results remained consistent after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, previous surgeries, bearing mobility, and surface modification, with sensitivity analyses. We found that uncemented PS implants have a higher rate of revision than uncemented CR implants, mainly due to a higher risk of aseptic loosening.

Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty: Current Concepts Review.

Posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the knee is a popular implant choice. At present, there is no consensus on whether sacrifice or retention of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) offers superior outcomes. This review explores the current literature available on CR total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PubMed was searched by keyword to find relevant articles for inclusion. Additional sources came from article references and joint registry reports. CR design knees have distinct kinematic gait patterns from posterior-stabilizing (PS) knees and exhibit paradoxical anterior femoral movement with less femoral rollback. While CR implants offer less flexion than PS designs, the difference is not clinically detectable as clinical scores are similar in the short and long term. CR implants have better long-term survival compared to PS knees, likely due to lower risk of aseptic loosening. CR total knee arthroplasties also have shorter operating times and lower risk of peri-prosthetic fractures. Because the CR implant is unconstrained, there may be an increased risk of instability compared to PS designs, but the literature is mixed. Overall, the current literature supports the continued use of CR TKAs due to their lower risk of complications, durability, and demonstrated equivalence in function to posterior-substituting models.

Cementless Versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty of the Same Design: Shorter Operative Times and Minimal Differences in Early Outcomes.

Introduction: Modern primary cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasingly popular, but there is limited evidence on its benefits, early complications, and failures. Purpose: We sought to evaluate operative time, early survivorship, and outcomes of cementless versus cemented TKA of the same design. Methods: As part of this single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective cohort study, we reviewed 598 primary, unilateral TKAs (170 cementless, 428 cemented) of the same design from 2016 to 2018. The cementless cohort was younger (63 vs 67 years) and had more cruciate-retaining implants (17% vs 12%) compared with the cemented cohort. We compared operative time, length of stay, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated via the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Patients with cementless TKA (using the Triathlon implant, Stryker) had a 24% reduction in operative time (83 vs 109 minutes) but similar length of stay compared with those with cemented TKA (57 vs 61 hours). Cementless TKA had a higher rate of postoperative manipulation for stiffness compared with cemented TKA (8% vs 3%), but there were notable demographic differences between the cohorts. Despite 2 cases (1%) of early cementless tibial aseptic loosening requiring component revision compared with none in the cemented cohort, there was no difference in revision-free survivorship at 2 years (96% and 98%, respectively). Conclusion: This retrospective cohort study found that cementless TKA had a 24% reduction in operative time compared with cemented TKA and similar short-term survivorship. There was a slightly higher rate of aseptic revision and manipulation in the cementless cohort. Further study is warranted on the long-term durability of cemented and cementless TKAs to determine if cementless fixation proves more durable in the midterm to long term.

Total knee replacement survivorship by Design Philosophy: are we ignoring medial pivot design? Analysis based on the UK National Joint Registry.

The UK National Joint Registry(NJR) has not reported total knee replacement (TKR) survivorship based on design phi- losophy alone, unlike its international counterparts. We report outcomes of implant survivorship based on design phi- losophy using data from NJR's 2020 annual report. All TKR implants with an identifiable design philosophy from NJR data were included. Cumulative revision data for cruciate-retaining(CR), posterior stabilised(PS), mobile-bearing(MB) design philosophies was derived from merged NJR data. Cumulative revision data for individual brands of implants with the medial pivot (MP) philosophy were used to calculate overall survivorship for this design philosophy. The all-cause revision was used as the endpoint and calculated to 15 years follow-up with Kaplan-Meier curves. 1,144,384 TKRs were included. CR is the most popular design philosophy (67.4%), followed by PS(23.1%), MB (6.9%) and least commonly MP (2.6%). MP and CR implants showed the best survivorship (95.7% and 95.6% respectively) at 15 years which is statistically significant at, and beyond, 10 years. Observed survivorship was lower at all time points with the PS and MB implants (94.5% for both designs at 15 years). While all design philosophies considered in this study survive well, CR and MP designs offer statistically superior survivorship at and beyond 10 years. MP design performs better than CR beyond 13 years yet, remain the least popular design philosophy used. Publishing data based on knee arthroplasty design phi- losophy would help surgeons when making decisions on implant choice.

Similar rate of return to sports activity between posterior-stabilised and cruciate-retaining primary total knee arthroplasty in young and active patient

PurposeCruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised implant designs are available for primary total knee arthroplasty. However, whether the implant design is associated with a difference in the level of activity still remains unclear. This clinical trial compared posterior-stabilised and cruciate-retaining implants in sport-related patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, rate of return to sport, and weekly time dedicated to sport in active adults. It was also hypothesised that in young and active patients both implants lead to a similar rate of return to sport in terms of hours per week, type of sport, and joint mobility.MethodsAll patients were evaluated preoperatively and for a minimum of 36 months follow-up. The University of California Los Angeles activity scores, High-Activity Arthroplasty Score, and Visual Analogue Scale were administered preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The range of motion was investigated at admission and the last follow-up. Data concerning the hours per week dedicated to sports and the type of sport practiced were also collected at admission and at the last follow-up. The Kaplan–Meier Curve was performed to compare implant survivorship.ResultsData from 227 procedures (cruciate-retaining: 109, posterior-stabilised: 118) were prospectively collected. At the last follow-up, no difference was reported in The University of California Los Angeles activity scores (p = 0.6), High-Activity Arthroplasty Score (p = 0.1), Visual Analogue Scale (p = 0.9), flexion (p = 0.7) and extension (p = 0.4). No difference was found in the rate of return (p = 0.1) and weekly hours dedicated to sport (p = 0.3). The Kaplan–Meier curve evidenced no statistically significant difference in implant survivorship (p = 0.6).ConclusionsAt approximately five years of follow-up, no difference was reported between cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised implants in active adults in sport-related patient-reported outcomes measures, range of motion, pain, weekly time dedicated to sport, rate of return to sport, and implant survivorship.Level of evidenceLevel II, prospective study.

Primary constrained-condylar-knee designs outperform posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining designs in high-grade varus osteoarthritic knees during short-term follow-up: a pilot study.

High-grade varus osteoarthrosis (OA) is characterized by a pronounced intra-articular varus deformity and associated insufficiency of the lateral ligamentous complex. When performing a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in such a knee, traditionally the alignment is restored to neutral, and the medial soft tissue structures are released to compensate for the lateral laxity and balance the joint. However, another option would be to leave the medial soft tissues untouched and accept the lateral laxity but to compensate for it using an ML-stabilized constrained-condylar knee (CCK) design. Our aim was to prove our hypothesis that such knees would demonstrate better clinical stability and better functionality as well as subjective outcome scores. We searched our bicenter database of 912 primary TKAs (from 2016 to 2019) for primary TKA patients with a preoperative varus alignment of > 8°. After inclusion, 60 patients were divided into three groups by implant design: CCK (n = 21), posterior-stabilized (PS) (n = 20) and cruciate-retaining (CR) (n = 19). Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee Society Score (KSS), UCLA-activity score, ML instability scores and both radiographic and clinical data were compared between groups. ML stability was significantly better in CCK designs (86% grade 0) compared to CR (37% grade 0) (p = 0.004) but not PS (70% grade 0) designs. No grade II instability was present in CCK and PS implants compared to 16% of CR implants. KSS and UCLA-activity score were higher in CCK designs compared to PS (p = 0.027, p = 0.041) and CR designs (p < 0.001, p = 0.007). OKS and FJS were higher in CCK designs compared to CR (p = 0.025, p = 0.008) but not to PS. The use of a CCK design to compensate for the lateral laxity in high-grade varus OA knees allowed to refrain from a medial release. CCK designs displayed improved clinical stability and better functionality as well as subjective outcome scores compared to less-constrained designs.

Stability with a Constrained Posterior Stabilized Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Does Not Compromise Durability.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in cases of complex deformity (e.g., ligamentous laxity, posttraumatic arthritis) may require prostheses with inherent varus-valgus stability greater than that of traditional posterior stabilized or cruciate-retaining implants. Here, we investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of TKA using a midlevel constraint (MLC) prosthesis. A retrospective review of 53 patients (62 knees) who underwent primary TKA with an MLC implant was performed. Short tibial stem extensions were utilized in 49 knees, and 13 knees received no stem extension. Mean follow-up time was 31.6 months (standard deviation [SD] = 10.0, range = 24-53). Preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) were assessed. Plain radiographs were reviewed for alignment, radiolucent lines, component loosening, and osteolysis. Patients who developed postoperative arthrofibrosis underwent manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). Failure was defined as instability, component loosening, or need for revision surgery. Mean ROM significantly improved from 114.1 degrees (SD = 19.7 degrees) preoperatively to 123.5 degrees (SD = 12.2 degrees) at final follow-up (t = -3.43, p = 0.001). Thirty-seven knees initially presented with varus deformity (mean = 7.5 degrees, SD = 4.8 degrees), whereas 23 had valgus deformity (mean = 10.6 degrees, SD = 6.5 degrees), and 2 knees had neutral alignment. Following surgery, mean alignment was 4.3 degrees valgus (SD = 1.7 degrees, range = 0-8 degrees), representing a statistically significant improvement (t = 5.29, p < 0.001). Six patients (9.7%) developed arthrofibrosis requiring MUA, which was irrespective of baseline ROM (p = 0.92) and consistent with 12% incidence reported in the literature. There were no significant differences in postoperative ROM (t = 0.38, p = 0.71), alignment (t = -0.22, p = 0.83), or incidence of arthrofibrosis (χ2 = 0.07, p = 0.79) between short-stemmed and nonstemmed implants. There was no radiographic evidence of radiolucent lines, component loosening, or osteolysis in any patients. No patients required revision surgery. Use of an MLC prosthesis with primary femoral component in TKA resulted in satisfactory clinical and radiographic results with no evidence of component loosening, osteolysis, instability, or need for revision at minimum 2-year follow-up.

Does Retention of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament Lead to a More "Forgotten Joint" Following Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retention may impact a patient's awareness of their artificial joint following primary total knee arthroplasty (pTKA) due to increased proprioception and more native knee kinematics. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether cruciate-retaining (CR) or posterior-stabilized (PS) implants influence the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) following pTKA. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent pTKA with a CR or PS implant at our institute between October 2017 and March 2021. Of the 6,258 patients identified, 5,587 did not have recorded FJS-12 scores at either three months, one year, or two years postoperatively nor a Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) preoperatively, three months, or one year postoperatively, and these were considered lost to follow up. Thus, a total of 671 cases were identified and subsequently stratified into two cohorts based on whether they received a CR (n=236, 35%) or PS (n=435, 65%) implant. Patients who received PS implants were further divided into constrained (CoN) and non-constrained (NCoN) liner cohorts. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores. There were no significant differences in PRO scores between CR and PS implants at any time point. Patients in the CoN (n=74) cohort had significantly higher FJS-12 scores at one year (CoN: 56.31 + 25.34 vs NCoN: 42.24 + 27.00, p=0.001) and two years (CoN: 58.52 + 33.71 vs NCoN: 46.97 + 27.44, p=0.013) postoperatively compared to patients in the NCoN (n=361) cohort. Although our analysis demonstrated significant differences in FJS-12 scores at one and two years postoperatively depending upon the liner constraint, there were no significant differences in FJS-12 scores between CR and PS implants. Therefore, while retention of the PCL does not impact patient awareness of their artificial joint, the level of liner constraint may influence outcomes if the PCL is sacrificed.

Early outcomes of ultra-congruent insert in cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: A prospective study

Introduction: The exponents of cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) assert that the retention of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) preserves more normal knee kinematics, femoral rollback on the tibia during flexion, greater stabilization of the prosthesis, and improved position sense as compared to PCL resection TKA. However, one has to shift to the posterior stabilized (PS) femoral component with box and accompanying cam postpolyethylene, especially in cases where PCL is too attenuated to be functional or too tight predisposing to accelerated polyethylene wear. To minimize both the cam mechanism polyethylene wear and the bone sacrifice due to the intercondylar box cut, the ultra-congruent (UC) inserts have been developed that are characterized by a high anterior wall and a deep-dished plate, promising good stability without cam mechanism. Materials and Methods: We did a prospective study to clinically evaluate the short-term results of the patients who underwent TKA using cemented posterior CR implants and UC inserts. PCL was required to be released either partially or completely in all the study patients. Thirty patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively after 12 months with the new Knee Society Knee Scoring System (2011) and the findings were statistically analyzed. Results: There was a statistically significant postoperative improvement in flexion (from mean of 87.69° to 111.53°, P = 0.000), objective knee indicators (33.53 ± 8.51–70.84 ± 4.91, P = 0.000), patient satisfaction scores (7.48 ± 2.12–21.53 ± 4.26, P = 0.000), and the functional activities score (32.53 ± 5.12–69.02 ± 6.36, P = 0.000). We did not note any disadvantage of CR TKA with UC insert and no patient underwent an early revision for instability. Conclusion: Using UC insert in CR TKA is a reliable procedure that has decreased the dependence on the PS designs.

Experimental measurements of femoral primary stability in two cementless posterior-stabilized knee replacement implants

Sufficient primary stability through interference fit is required for bone ingrowth and subsequent long-term fixation of cementless knee replacement implants, and can be evaluated in experimental testing. In this study, primary stability of a novel posterior-stabilized (PS) femoral component (Attune PS) and a contemporary PS component (Triathlon PS) were analyzed, and compared to previous outcomes of cruciate-retaining (CR) implants. Potential bone ingrowth was evaluated by measuring micromotions over the implant−bone interface in six cadaveric femur pairs under two loading conditions using digital image correlation, for a paired comparison of the PS implants. Push-off forces required to achieve implant removal under high-flexion were determined as a measure of implant fixation. Achieved interference fit was determined by reconstructing the implant positions through use of separate implant and resected bone geometries. Lower overall micromotions and a higher average push-off force were measured in the Attune PS implant, indicating increased initial fixation compared to the Triathlon PS design. Interference fit was significantly higher for the Attune PS and was related to lower gait micromotions in Triathlon and overall PS groups. Based on reported clinical results and the comparison with available CR implant results, both PS implants are expected to provide sufficient initial clinical stability.

Evaluating Long Term Outcomes and Survivorship of Cruciate Retaining and Sacrificing Knee Replacements Done for Degenerative Arthritis in Patients Under 55 Years.

Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is the gold standard of treatment for end stage arthritis not responding to conservative treatment. With a recent increase in the younger population presenting with osteoarthritis (OA) we undertook this study to evaluate long-term outcomes and survivorship of TKA in this cohort. Our study cohort included 328 patients, < 55years, with OA, who underwent TKA using Cruciate Retaining (CR), and Posterior Stabilized (PS) implants with a minimum follow up of 15years. Revision surgery was the end point of our analysis and Kaplan-Meier evaluation of survivorship was measured. Knee Society Scores (KSS) and Range of Motion (ROM) were assessed to evaluate outcomes. Survivorship of the CR and PS implants with revision as end point, for aseptic loosening was 97.3% and 96%, and revision for all causes was 89.7% and 86.1%, respectively, at 15years. The outcomes of CR implants were better than the PS cohort in terms of function and survivorship. Long term survivorship and outcome analysis of TKA in patients < 55years showed good results with excellent survivorship, with both CR and PS implants. The CR cohort demonstrated better long-term survivorship, though the difference was not statistically significant. Deep infection and aseptic loosening were the commonest causes for failure.

Return to Play and Performance in Golfers After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does Component Type Matter?

Golf is a popular sport among patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The golf swing requires significant knee rotation, which may lead to changes in golfing ability postoperatively. The type of implant used may alter the swing mechanics or place different stresses on the knee. The purpose of this study was to evaluate golf performance and subjective stability after TKA and compare outcomes between cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) implants. Patients with CR implants will experience better stability during the golf swing compared to patients with PS implants. Retrospective cohort study. Level 3. Patients who underwent primary TKA were identified from the medical record and sent an electronic questionnaire focusing on return to play (RTP), performance, pain, and stability during the golf swing. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were collected before and at multiple time points after surgery. Patients were surveyed postoperatively and asked to evaluate overall performance, pain, and stability before and after surgery. Outcomes were compared based on implant type. Most patients (81.5%) were able to return to golf at an average of 5.3 ± 3.1 months from surgery. The average postoperative KOOS was 74.6 ± 12.5 in patients able to RTP compared with 64.4 ± 9.5 in those who were not (P < 0.05). Knee pain during golf significantly improved from 6.4 ± 2.1 to 1.8 ± 2.2 (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in pain, performance, or stability between the CR and PS patients. Most patients can successfully return to golfing after TKA. Knee replacement offers patients reliable pain relief during the golf swing and fewer physical limitations during golf, with no detriment to performance. There is no difference in performance or subjective knee stability based on component type. Understanding associated outcomes of different TKA knee systems allows for unbiased and confident recommendations of either component to golfers receiving total knee replacement.

Evaluating the “Patella-Friendly” Concept in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Minimum 15-Year Follow-Up Outcome Study Comparing Constant Radius, Multiradius Cruciate-Retaining, and Nonanatomical Cruciate-Retaining Implants

BackgroundPatella-friendly femoral components were developed in order to reduce anterior knee pain and patellofemoral complications in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but their effect on long-term outcome is still unclear. MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated prospectively collected data from 3 groups consisting of 100 patients (100 knees in each). In group A, the constant radius a-MP, in group B the multiradius cruciate-retaining Genesis II, and in group C the nonanatomic, multiradius, cruciate-retaining AGC TKA was implanted. Patients of all groups were matched for age, gender, side, body mass index, and length of follow-up. Preoperative and postoperative clinical outcome data in the form of Knee Society System (KSS), Short Form-12, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, and Oxford Knee Score were available at regular intervals for groups A and B. For patients of group C, KSS score data were available at the same time intervals. In all groups, the patellofemoral compartment was assessed using the Clinical Patella Score scale. Anterior knee pain, secondary patella resurfacing, implant failure, and radiological outcome were assessed in patients of all groups. ResultsAt 10-year and 15-year follow-up, patients of group A showed statistically significant (s.s.) higher (all P = .000) KSS values as compared to those of groups B and C. At 15-year follow-up, patients of group B showed s.s. higher (P = .001) KSS values as compared to those of group C. At 10-year and 15-year follow up, patients of group A showed s.s. higher (all P = .00) Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford Knee Score values as compared to those of group B. At 15-year follow-up only, patients of group A showed s.s. higher (P = .00) Short Form-12 (physical) values as compared to those of group B. In terms of Clinical Patella Score, patients in group A had s.s. higher values (P = .05) when compared to those of groups B and C. Anterior knee pain was recorded in 4.4% of TKAs in group A, 7.5% in group B, and 17.2% in group C. One (1.1%) patient in group A, 3 (3.25%) in group B, and 7 (8%) in group C underwent secondary resurfacing. ConclusionAnatomical, patella-friendly, constant radius femoral components outperform others in reducing anterior knee pain and patella complications in TKA in which the patellae are left nonresurfaced.

Evaluation of Functional Status in Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Total Knee System and Genesis II Cruciate-Retaining Implant

ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Biały M, Corte RD, Dec J, Pierzchała A, Gnat R. Evaluation of Functional Status in Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Total Knee System and Genesis II Cruciate-Retaining Implant. Physiotherapy Review. 2021;25(3):24-34. doi:10.5114/phr.2021.109028. APA Biały, M., Corte, R. D., Dec, J., Pierzchała, A., & Gnat, R. (2021). Evaluation of Functional Status in Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Total Knee System and Genesis II Cruciate-Retaining Implant. Physiotherapy Review, 25(3), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.5114/phr.2021.109028 Chicago Biały, Maciej, Ronny D Corte, Juliusz Dec, Adam Pierzchała, and Rafał Gnat. 2021. "Evaluation of Functional Status in Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Total Knee System and Genesis II Cruciate-Retaining Implant". Physiotherapy Review 25 (3): 24-34. doi:10.5114/phr.2021.109028. Harvard Biały, M., Corte, R., Dec, J., Pierzchała, A., and Gnat, R. (2021). Evaluation of Functional Status in Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Total Knee System and Genesis II Cruciate-Retaining Implant. Physiotherapy Review, 25(3), pp.24-34. https://doi.org/10.5114/phr.2021.109028 MLA Biały, Maciej et al. "Evaluation of Functional Status in Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Total Knee System and Genesis II Cruciate-Retaining Implant." Physiotherapy Review, vol. 25, no. 3, 2021, pp. 24-34. doi:10.5114/phr.2021.109028. Vancouver Biały M, Corte R, Dec J, Pierzchała A, Gnat R. Evaluation of Functional Status in Patients after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparison of the Journey II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized Total Knee System and Genesis II Cruciate-Retaining Implant. Physiotherapy Review. 2021;25(3):24-34. doi:10.5114/phr.2021.109028.

A cruciate-retaining implant can treat both knees of most windswept deformities when performed with calipered kinematically aligned TKA.

Surgeons performing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on the osteoarthritic valgus deformity often use a posterior stabilized (PS) and semi-constrained implants to substitute for the release of a contracted posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) instead of a cruciate retaining (CR) implant. Calipered kinematic alignment (KA) strives to retain the PCL and use a CR implant. The aim of this study of the windswept deformity was to determine whether the level of implant constraint, outcome scores, and alignment after bilateral calipered KA TKA are different between a pair of knees with a varus and valgus deformity in the same patient. A review of aprospectively collected database identifiedall patients with a windswept deformity treated with bilateral TKA (n = 19) out of2430 consecutive primary TKAsperformed between 2014 and 2019.Operative reports determined the level of implant constraint. Patient response to the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) assessed outcomes at a mean follow-up of 2.3years. Postoperative alignment was measured on an A-P computer tomographic scanogram of the limb. CR implants were used in 15 of 19 (79%) valgus deformities and 17 of 19 (89%) of varus deformities (n.s.). No knees required a semi-constrained implant. There was no difference in the median postoperative FJS and OKS (n.s.), and a 1° or less difference in the mean postoperative distal lateral femoral angle (p = 0.005) and proximal medial tibial angle (n.s.) between the paired varus and valgus knee deformity. Based on this small series, surgeons that use calipered KA TKA can expect to use CR implants in most patients with windswept deformity and achieve comparable outcome scores and alignment between the paired varus and valgus deformity. IV.

Are There Differences in Micromotion on Radiostereometric Analysis Between Bicruciate and Cruciate-retaining Designs in TKA? A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Bicruciate-retaining TKA has been proposed to improve clinical outcomes by maintaining intrinsic ACL function. However, because the unique design of the bicruciate-retaining tibial component precludes a tibial stem, fixation may be compromised. A radiostereometric analysis permits an evaluation of early migration of tibial components in this setting, but to our knowledge, no such analysis has been performed. We performed a randomized controlled trial using a radiostereometric analysis and asked, at 2 years: (1) Is there a difference in tibial implant migration between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? In a secondary analysis, we asked: (2) Is there a difference in patient-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Score [OKS] and Forgotten Joint Score [FJS] between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? (3) What is the frequency of reoperations and revisions for the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining TKA designs? This parallel-group trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01966848) randomized 50 patients with an intact ACL who were eligible to undergo TKA to receive either a bicruciate-retaining or cruciate-retaining TKA. Patients were blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial component measured with model-based radiostereometric analysis (RSA) at 2 years postoperatively. The MTPM is a translation vector defined as the point in the RSA model that has the greatest combined translation in x-, y- and z-directions. A 1-year postoperative mean MTPM value of 1.6 mm has been suggested as a threshold for unacceptable increased risk of aseptic loosening after both 5 and 10 years. The repeatability of the MTPM was found to be 0.26 mm in our study. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively with the OKS (scale of 0-48, worst-best) and FJS (scale of 0-100, worst-best). Baseline characteristics did not differ between groups. At 2 years postoperatively, RSA images were available for 22 patients who underwent bicruciate-retaining and 23 patients who underwent cruciate-retaining TKA, while patient-reported outcome measures were available for 24 patients in each group. The study was powered to detect a 0.2-mm difference in MTPM between groups (SD = 0.2, significance level = 5%, power = 80%). With the numbers available, we found no difference in MTPM between the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining groups. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) MTPM was 0.52 mm (0.35 to 1.02) and 0.42 mm (0.34 to 0.70) in the bicruciate-retaining and cruciate-retaining groups, respectively (p = 0.63). There was no difference in the magnitude of improvement in the OKS from preoperatively to 2 years postoperative between the groups (median delta [IQR] for bicruciate-retaining 18 [14 to 23] versus cruciate-retaining 18 [15 to 21], difference of medians 0; p = 0.96). Likewise, there was no difference in the magnitude of improvement in the FJS score from preoperatively to 2 years postoperative between the groups (mean ± SD for bicruciate-retaining 46 ± 32 versus cruciate-retaining 48 ± 16, mean difference, 2; p = 0.80). Three patients in the bicruciate-retaining group underwent arthroscopically assisted manipulation at 3 to 4 months postoperatively, and one patient in the bicruciate-retaining group sustained a tibial island fracture during primary surgery and underwent a revision procedure after 6 months. There were no reoperations or revisions in the cruciate-retaining group. With the numbers available, we found no differences between the bicruciate-retaining and the cruciate-retaining implants in terms of stable fixation on RSA or patient-reported outcome measure scores at 2 years, and must therefore recommend against the routine clinical use of the bicruciate-retaining device. The complications we observed with the bicruciate-retaining device suggest it has an associated learning curve and the associated risks of novelty with no demonstrable benefit to the patient; it is also likely to be more expensive in most centers. Continued research on this implant should only be performed in the context of controlled trials. Level II, therapeutic study.