Cruciate-retaining Research Articles

Radiological measurement of posterior tibial subluxation as a preoperative factor in choosing the type of implant in primary total knee arthroplasty.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the most effective treatment of late osteoarthritis (OA) and is considered among the most successful surgical procedures in general. However, about 20% of patients remain dissatisfied. An important aspect of TKA is the proper choice of implant type - posterior stabilized (PS) or cruciate retaining (CR). Both have their indications for use based on intraoperative functional examination, but no objective radiological criteria have yet been developed. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the posterior subluxation of the tibia on preoperative radiograms and implant type used. A series of 52 patients undergoing TKA were included in the study. All patients were over 50 years old, had clinically and radiologically confirmed primary OA of grade IV on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale and were undergoing a primary total knee replacement (TKR) with a PS or CR design. Preoperative lateral radiographs were analysed retrospectively. The tibial translation ratio was calculated as a percentage of subluxation in the length of the tibial plateau. There were no significant differences between implant types in regard to investigated parameters. However, there was a significant difference between the groups CR and PS in regard to age (68.5 [60.0-72.0] vs. 72.5 [68.0-75.0], p = 0.006). This study revealed that preoperative tibial translation does not significantly correlate with the choice of implant type and so probably not with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) function and efficiency either. Additionally, this study showed that PCL insufficiency is related to the age of the patients, because of the more frequent choice of the PS implant type for the surgery in older patients than in the case of the CR implant type.

Comparison of postoperative clinical outcome in medial-pivotal and gradually reducing radius design cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty-A multicenter analysis of propensity-matched cohorts.

To clarify differences in surgery duration, postoperative knee range of motion (ROM), anterior and posterior (AP) laxity, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) in patients undergoing medial-pivot (MP) and GRADIUS cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgeries. We examined patients who underwent either MP or CR TKA at six different Japanese centres. Patients were propensity score matched for age, sex, and preoperative hip-knee angle (HKA). We compared the groups' average surgery duration, postoperative knee ROM, AP laxity, and FJS 1 year after surgery. There were 86 study patients: 43 MP and 43 CR TKA matched for age, sex, and preoperative HKA. The MP group enjoyed a significantly shorter surgery duration (89.1 ± 10.9 mins vs. 95.7 ± 12.0 mins, p = 0.0091) and significantly better postoperative knee flexion than the CR group (123.7 ± 9.1° vs. 115.3 ± 12.4°, p < 0.001). The MP had significantly smaller postoperative AP laxity with 30° of knee flexion than the CR group (3.4 ± 1.3 vs. 5.6 ± 2.2 mm, p < 0.001). Conversely, postoperative AP laxity with 90° of knee flexion was significantly larger for the MP group (3.6 ± 1.3 vs. 2.7 ± 1.9 mm, p = 0.0098). There were no between-group differences in postoperative FJS. The MP group showed better postoperative knee flexion, midrange AP knee stability, and shorter surgery duration. Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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.

Equivalence of clinical and radiological outcomes in cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty with medial pivot knee: A comparative study

IntroductionTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been recognized as the most efficacious surgical intervention for individuals suffering from advanced arthritis; however, there is ongoing debate on the technical details of the procedure. It remains unknown whether preservation of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) significantly affects the mid-to long-term performance of ADVANCE® medial-pivotal (AMP) knee implants to enhance patient satisfaction. The hypothesis of this study was to investigate whether the preservation of the PCL has a substantial impact on the functional outcomes of medial pivot (MP) implants in patients undergoing TKA. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of cruciate-retaining (CR) and cruciate-substituting (CS) TKA using MP prostheses. MethodsWe included 376 consecutive patients who underwent unilateral TKA between January 2011 and April 2014. Follow-up evaluations were conducted in April 2021. After propensity score matching analysis, clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates were compared between patients in the CR and CS groups. ResultsThe postoperative outcomes in the two groups significantly improved the preoperative conditions of the patients (all p > 0.05). The postoperative outcomes (WOMAC score, p = 0.517; KSS, p = 0.107; KSFS, p = 0.240; ROM, p = 0.795; FJS, p = 0.822) and radiographic outcomes (preoperative FTA, p = 0.997; postoperative FTA, p = 0.646; aLDFA, p = 0.094; aMPTA, p = 0.970; PTS, p = 0.243) were comparable between the two groups. The complication and revision rates between the groups were not statistically significant (p = 0.34). The Kaplan–Meier cumulative survival of patients in the CRTKA and CSTKA groups was 100 % and 98.6 %, respectively. ConclusionsThis study supports the hypothesis that when MP prostheses are used, both CR and CS procedures achieve equally good mid-to long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and complication rates. These findings suggest that PCL preservation may not significantly affect the overall performance of MP implants in patients undergoing TKA.

Preserving primary medial static stabilizer ligaments achieves physiological knee kinematics in total knee arthroplasty

PurposeAs postoperative knee instability has been reported to be one of the critical reasons for early failure in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), obtaining optimal knee stability—especially in medial—was indispensable for successful TKA. We hypothesized that preserving medial soft tissue structures was the key to maintain physiological medial knee stability. Thus, TKAs with preserving primary medial static stabilizer ligaments technique were performed, and the postoperative knee kinematics was evaluated. MethodsPrimary knee osteoarthritis patients with varus knee deformity and planed for primary TKA were enrolled. However, patients with severe varus knee deformities, valgus knee deformities, and rheumatoid arthritis were excluded. TKAs were performed by removing medial femoral and tibial osteophytes; however, the primary medial static stabilizer ligaments—the superficial medial collateral ligament (MCL), deep MCL, and posterior oblique ligament—were not released. The cruciate-retaining (CR), posterior-stabilized (PS), and medial-pivot (MP) inserts were implanted, and the knee kinematics was measured. These data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance. The institutional review board approved the study. ResultsFrom full extension to maximum flexion, the lateral femoral condyle moved backward, greater than the medial femoral condyle, and consequently the femur external rotated on the tibia. These kinematics patterns were shown in CR, PS, and MP groups. ConclusionAs the knee kinematics of CR and PS are similar to that of MP, which has been reported to demonstrate physiological knee kinematics, preserving primary medial static stabilizer ligaments technique could potentially preserve physiological knee kinematics.

The Early Clinical Outcomes Following Unrestricted Caliper Verified Kinematic Alignment Using a Medial Stabilized Design Total Knee Arthroplasty With a Cruciate Retaining Insert

BackgroundAlthough various total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant designs are widely used, the ideal TKA design is yet to be agreed upon. Although the benefits of cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA and medial stabilized (MS) TKA have been reported in literature, the early clinical outcomes of an MS TKA with CR inserts have not been reported. This study aims to report on the patient-reported clinical and radiological outcomes of MS-TKA combined with a CR insert. MethodsA prospective single-surgeon series evaluated the clinical- and patient-reported outcomes of 115 patients implanted with GMK Sphere CR. Patient outcomes were assessed with the Oxford Knee Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS), Forgotten Joint Score, and Visual Analogue Scale for Satisfaction. Radiological assessment for alignment along with active flexion and extension were also assessed. ResultsImprovement in all scores was observed between the preoperative and 1-year follow-up timepoints, with statistical significance seen for Oxford Knee Score as well as KOOS Symptoms, Pain, Sport, quality of life, and activities of daily living subscales. The mean active flexion between the preoperative and both postoperative timepoints at 6 months and 1 year was also statistically significant (P = .021 and P = .001). ConclusionsMS-TKA with a CR insert can facilitate symptom relief and improve overall function of the knee after surgery. Both the patient and clinical outcomes were comparable to 1-year outcomes utilizing other MS-TKA designs and were superior to those at 1-year follow-up following implantation of CR-TKA. Most notability, the KOOS symptoms and sports score were higher for the MS-TKA with a CR insert than for an MS-TKA design.

The Impact of Patellar Position on Mediolateral Joint Gap in Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Study

BackgroundThis prospective study aimed to investigate the influence of patellar position (ie, eversion, lateralization, and reduction) on medial and lateral gap measurements during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in both cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA designs. MethodsThe present work analyzed 50 knees with primary osteoarthritis that underwent TKA between July and November 2019. Medial and lateral gaps were measured at different knee flexion angles (0°, 45°, 90°, and 120°) in 3 patellar positions after sequentially inserting CR type and PS type trial component in the same knee. ResultsIn CR TKA, medial gaps in patellar reduction showed significantly smaller gaps at 90° and 120° of knee flexion compared to those in eversion and lateralization (P < .001). Lateral gaps in patellar reduction were also significantly larger than those in eversion and lateralization (P < .001). The mediolateral gap difference in patellar reduction was significantly greater at all flexion angles compared to those in eversion and lateralization (P < .001). In PS TKA, similar patterns were observed for medial gaps, lateral gaps, and mediolateral gap differences (P < .001). ConclusionsThe ligament balancing with the patella everted or subluxed may lead to an overly tight medial gap and/or loose lateral gap in the knee with a closed arthrotomy, which has potential consequences for knee function in both CR and PS TKA designs. The results of this study highlight the importance of considering patellar position to ensure optimal soft-tissue balance and joint stability in TKA.

A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes Between Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

We investigated a comparison of clinical outcomes between cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty. However, it is still controversial which design leads to better clinical results. In clinical settings, choosing either CR or PS is likely based on the surgeon's preferences. In this study, short-term clinical outcomes between CR and PS in patients who received a single knee prosthesis were compared using propensity score matching. Two hundred and twelve CR and 43 PS of a single knee prosthesis were enrolled in this study. After propensity score matching, 34 knees each in the CR and PS groups were chosen and were without significant differences in age at operation, gender, BMI, preoperative range of motion (ROM), preoperative femorotibial angle (FTA), and presence or absence of patellar replacement. Clinical scores, including ROM, Knee Society score (KSS), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), except for the sports subscale, were compared between the CR and PS groups preoperatively and two years postoperatively. Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in FTA, ROM, or KSS. Preoperative scores for the KOOS except for the pain subscale were comparable between the groups. Postoperatively, however, the PS group had a significantly higher score in the ADL subscale compared to the CR group (PS: 89.5 vs. CR: 80.8,p= 0.017). The KOOS subscales other than activities of daily living (ADL) were comparable between the groups. In this propensity score-matched cohort study, PS showed a better outcome for the ADL than the CR design. These findings suggest that choosing either CR or PS should not depend on the surgeon's preferences. A PS design may be preferable to CR for elderly patients.

Short-term clinical outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty with a new-type kinematic retaining implant: A comparison with preexisting cruciate retaining prosthesis.

Despite the success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), current implant designs could not consistently restore the physiological knee kinematics, especially in cruciate-retaining (CR) implants. This study aimed to investigate the short-term clinical outcomes, particularly patient satisfaction, of primary TKA employing a new-type kinematic retaining (KR) implant. We analyzed 149 cases applied the KR implant at our institutions during June 2017 to May 2019. The effectiveness of this implant design was compared with another CR one (171 cases). Both groups underwent primary TKA in the same period and all patients completed 2 years of follow-up. Perioperative changes in range of motion (ROM), Knee Score, function score, and patient satisfaction by Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) method were evaluated. Postoperative ROM, Knee Score, and function score were significantly improved at 1 year after surgeries and maintained for another year in both KR and CR groups. The improvement rate of ROM in KR group (108.1%) was substantially higher than that in CR (104.5%), even 4% increase could have affected patients' satisfaction in a real-world setting. Regarding the patient satisfaction, such 4 items as climbing stairs, walking on a bumpy road, doing housework or gardening, and taking a walk or hiking were significantly enhanced in KR cases compared to CR. There were no loosening or revision cases and the short-term survivorships of both implants were 100%. In addition, there has been no case of obvious complications in both groups during and after surgeries. The results of the present study suggest that this novel KR prosthesis can reproduce physiological knee kinematics, recover its functions, and contribute to pain relief after TKA. TKA procedure using the KR implant should be a good surgical option to improve postoperative outcomes.

PCL preservation or sacrifice does not influence clinical outcomes and survivorship at mid-term follow-up of a J-curve CR total knee replacement with a medial congruent liner and a functional coronal alignment.

In recent years, increasing interest has arisen for medial pivoting TKA implants, designed to mimic the physiological knee kinematics, maximizing the contact area on the medial compartment of the knee, increasing anterior-posterior stability, and contributing to a ball-in-socket effect that allows the posterior cruciate sacrifice without a post-CAM mechanism. The medial congruent liner works with a J-curve cruciate-retaining (CR) femur without a real ball-in-socket design. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and survival of these implants, with or without PCL sparing, at a medium follow-up. Between October 2016 and October 2018, 165 TKRs were performed in 161 patients (69.2% females and 30.8% males) and prospectively followed. Mean follow-up was 72 ± 12 months. All surgeries were performed using an extramedullary device and the same prosthetic implant. Patients were matched in two groups: in 80 patients, the PCL was preserved; in 85 patients, the PCL was sacrificed with a reduction of the tibial slope. The OKS and KSS improved in both groups. The difference between the two groups at the final follow-up was not statistically significant. Good-to-excellent clinical results according to the KSS were achieved in 93% of the knees in the PCP group and in 95% in the PCS group. At final follow-up, the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) was 73.6 in the PCP group and 74.1 in the PCS group with no statistical difference between the two groups (P > 0.05). TKA with a medially congruent insert, showed promising results at mid-term follow-up, PCL preservation or sacrifice did not affect the clinical outcomes and survival. Further follow-up will be needed to evaluate these results at long term.

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.

Better Flexion but Unaffected Satisfaction After Treatment With Posterior Stabilized Versus Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty – 2-year Results of a Prospective, Randomized Trial

BackgroundBoth the cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) implant systems are commonplace in modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) practice. However, there is controversy regarding functional outcomes and survivorship. The aim of the underlying study was to evaluate differences between CR and PS TKA regarding knee function, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as well as complication rates. Methods140 patients with knee osteoarthritis scheduled for an unconstrained TKA were enrolled in a prospective, randomized study. Patients received either a CR or PS implant. Range of motion and PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level, University of California Los Angeles Activity scale and subjective satisfaction) were assessed prior to, 3 months, 1 and 2 years after surgery. ResultsWe found minor differences between treatment groups regarding demographic factors. Within the PS group duration of surgery was longer (mean PS 81.4 min vs CR 76.0 min, P = .006). We observed better flexion (median PS 120.0° vs CR 115°, P = .017) and an overall better range of motion (median PS 120.0° vs CR 115.0°, P = .008) for the PS group. PROMs did not differ between groups. At 2-year follow-up there were no revisions in either cohort. Five patients needed reoperations. Three patients needed manipulation under anesthesia, 2 in the CR and one in the PS group. ConclusionWhile PS TKA achieved a better flexion capability, PROMs were similar in CR and PS TKA. The CR implant design continues to be a reliable option for patients with an intact posterior cruciate ligament.

Novel morphogenic knee implant delivers comparable mid-term outcomes as compared to conventional non-morphogenic implants.

Conventional total knee arthroplasty (C-TKA) implants have well-established mid- and long-term outcomes. The novel TKA (N-TKA) implants provide morphogenic implant components with smaller size increments to facilitate anatomical replication. The aim of the study is to evaluate if these advantages provides better clinical outcomes. Registry data prospectively collected within a single institution from 2014 to 2018 was reviewed and propensity score matching was performed to match C-TKA to N-TKA. 70 pairs of cruciate retaining (CR) TKA and 116 pairs of posterior stabilized (PS) TKA were identified. Range of motion, SF-36, Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were assessed preoperatively, 6 and 24months postoperatively. Satisfaction was assessed 6 and 24months postoperatively. Independent T test was performed for parametric data, whereas Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis was performed for non-parametric data. Both C-TKA and N-TKA cohorts demonstrated statistically significant improvement for KSKS, KSFS, OKS and SF-36 at 6 and 24months postoperatively. C-TKA CR patients had better flexion at 6months as compared to N-TKA CR (108.7° versus 98.3°, respectively, p = 0.046). At 24months, there was no difference between C-TKA and N-TKA for range of motion, KSKS, KSFS, OKS and SF-36 PCS, regardless of insert type (p > 0.05). Both models showed great postoperative improvements in KSFS, KSKS, OKS and SF-36 and have comparable early and mid-term outcomes, suggesting that N-TKAs are suitable substitutes for C-TKA. Longer follow-up studies are required to evaluate the long-term outcomes of N-TKAs. lll.

Comparison of clinical outcomes among total knee arthroplasties using posterior-stabilized, cruciate-retaining, bi-cruciate substituting, bi-cruciate retaining designs: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Despite the advent of innovative knee prosthesis design, a consistent first-option knee implant design in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remained unsettled. This study aimed to compare the clinical effects among posterior-stabilized (PS), cruciate-retaining (CR), bi-cruciate substituting (BCS), and bi-cruciate retaining designs for primary TKA. Electronic databases were systematically searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception up to July 30, 2021. The primary outcomes were the range of knee motion (ROM), and the secondary outcomes were the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complication and revision rates. Confidence in evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed for synthesis. A total of 15 RCTs and 18 cohort studies involving 3520 knees were included. The heterogeneity and inconsistency were acceptable. There was a significant difference in ROM at the early follow-up when PS was compared with CR (mean difference [MD] = 3.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07, 7.18) and BCS was compared with CR (MD = 9.69, 95% CI 2.18, 17.51). But at the long-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in ROM in any one knee implant compared with the others. No significant increase was found in the PROMs and complication and revision rates at the final follow-up time. At early follow-up after TKA, PS and BCS knee implants significantly outperform the CR knee implant in ROM. But in the long run, the available evidence suggests different knee prostheses could make no difference in clinical outcomes after TKA with extended follow-up.

Effects of patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs) vs. conventional instrumentation on patient-reported outcome in total knee arthroplasty: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial after 5 years.

The use of patient-specific positioning guides (PSPGs) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been advocated as a means of improving patient outcomes, but the reception of PSPGs has been mixed. The aim of our study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (KOOS, NRS-11, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS) after TKA using PSPG with conventional instrumentation (CI) to determine whether there is a discernible clinical benefit to using PSPGs. This multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) followed 77 patients who were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 cohorts between September 2011 and January 2014-one receiving TKA with PSPGs (from Materialise NV) and one receiving TKA with CI-with each cohort followed up until 5 years after the operation. The Vanguard Cruciate Retaining Total Knee System and Refobacin Bone Cement R were used in all operations. KOOS was evaluated using confidence intervals, with differences of less than 10 KOOS units between the cohorts interpreted as indicating the absence of a clinically meaningful difference. No significant differences were found in any of the measured clinical outcomes-KOOS, NRS-11, EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, range of motion, or radiolucent lines scoring-between the cohort operated on using PSPG and the cohort operated on using CI after 5 years of follow-up. There was no statistically significant effect of PSPGs on patient-reported outcomes or range of motion in TKA.

Cruciate-Retaining Versus Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

Primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed using cruciate-retaining (CR), cruciate-substituting (CS), or posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty designs. While there have been many studies comparing the outcomes of CR versus PS TKA, the current literature is lacking in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compare outcomes of CR knees versus CS TKAs. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature comparing CR and CS knees with regard to survivorship, functional, and patient-reported outcomes, range of motion (ROM), biomechanics, and revision rate. PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were used for the literature search, and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to assess the quality of the studies. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria.This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that there are no significant differences in survivorship, ROM, or clinical knee scores between the CR and CS knees. Postoperative complications did not vary greatly between the CR and CS groups. Among the seven studies, three CR designs needed revision for either patellar crepitus, joint stiffness, or aseptic loosening of the tibial component. One CS design needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunk syndrome. CR and CS knees are both reasonable options for primary TKA.

Ultracongruent Designs Compared to Posterior-Stabilized and Cruciate-Retaining Tibial Inserts – What Does the Evidence Tell Us? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPosterior-stabilized (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR) have been the most common tibial designs used in total knee arthroplasty. Ultra-congruent (UC) inserts are becoming popular because they preserve bone without relying on the posterior cruciate ligament balance and integrity. Despite increasing use, there is no consensus on how UC inserts perform versus PS and CR designs. MethodsA comprehensive literature search of 5 online databases was performed for articles from January 2000 to July 2022 comparing the kinematic and clinical outcomes of PS or CR tibial inserts to UC inserts. There were nineteen studies included. There were 5 studies comparing UC to CR and 14 comparing UC to PS. Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) was rated “good quality”. ResultsFor CR studies, pooled analyses showed no difference in knee flexion (n = 3, P = .33) or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores (n = 2, P = .58). For PS studies, meta-analyses showed better anteroposterior stability (n = 4, P < .001) and more femoral rollback (n = 2, P < .001) for PS but no difference in knee flexion (n = 9, P = .55) or medio-lateral stability (n = 2, P = .50). There was no difference with WOMAC (n = 5, P = .26), Knee Society Score (n = 3, P = .58), Knee Society Knee Score (n = 4, P = .76), or Knee Society Function Score (n = 5, P = .51). ConclusionAvailable data demonstrates there are no clinical differences between CR or PS and UC inserts in small short-term studies ending around 2 years after surgery. More importantly, high-quality research comparing all inserts is lacking, demonstrating a need for more uniform and longer-term studies beyond 5 years after surgery to justify increased UC usage.

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF POSTERIOR STABILIZING VS CRUCIATE RETAINING PROSTHESIS IN TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT

Introduction: There has been a continuing debate regarding whether the posterior cruciate ligament should be sacrificed or retained at the time of total knee arthroplasty.It is still controversial which approach is superior because both cruciate retaining prosthesis and posterior stabilizing prosthesis have advantages and disadvantages. Materials and Methods: A cross sectional analytical study was conducted on 37 patients (20 in Posterior Stabilized group and 17 in Cruciate Retaining group) fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The follow up was done at 1, 3 and 6 months during which functional outcome was compared using American Knee Society Score and associated complications were also compared. Results: At 6 months, the mean Knee Society Knee scores in Posterior Stabilized Group and Cruciate Retaining group were 91.05 ± 3.53 and 90.12 ± 3.57 respectively and mean Knee Society Functional scores were 89.75 ± 4.44 and 88.52 ± 4.24 respectively. The mean Knee Society Knee Score and Functional Score in both the groups were statistically not significant at pre-operative, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months as revealed by insignificant p value (&gt;0.05). There were 3 complications in Posterior Stabilized Group which were 1 case of knee stiffness, 1 infection and 1 tibiofemoral subluxation. There were 2 complications in Cruciate Retaining Group which were 1 case of anterior knee pain and 1 periprosthetic proximal tibia fracture. Conclusions: Although, both the groups individually had significant improvement in regards to function from pre operative status to post operative status, there was no statistically significant difference in clinical and functional outcome between the two groups when compared with each other. However, the Posterior Stabilizing Total Knee Arthroplasty had better Range of motion score throughout the study. The complications associated with both the groups were comparable.

Can pain be improved with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament during total knee arthroplasty?

The purpose of the current study was to determine if differences exist between cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) implant articulations for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with regards to early post-operative pain. We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary TKA, with the same TKA implant design, at our institution between January 2018 and July 2021. Patients were stratified based on whether they received a CR or non-constrained PS (PSnC) articulation and propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio. A sub-analysis matching patient who received a constrained PS implant (PSC) to those undergoing CR TKA and PSnC TKA was also carried out. Opioid dosages were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). 616 patients after CR TKA were matched 1:1 to 616 patients with a PSnC implant. There were no significant differences between demographic variables. There were no statistically significant differences in opioid usage measured by MME on post-operative day (POD) 0 (p = 0.171), POD1 (p = 0.839), POD2 (p = 0.307), or POD3 (p = 0.138); VAS pain scores (p = 0.175); or 90-day readmission rate for pain (p = 0.654). A sub-analysis of CR versus PSC TKA demonstrated no significant differences in opioid usage on POD0 (p = 0.765), POD1 (p = 0.747), POD2 (p = 0.564), POD3 (p = 0.309); VAS pain scores (p = 0.293); and 90-day readmission rate for pain (p > 0.9). Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in post-operative VAS pain scores and MME usage based on implant. The results suggest that neither the type of articulation or constraint used for primary TKA has a significant impact on immediate post-operative pain and opioid consumption. Retrospective Cohort Study.

MOTION CAPTURE ANALYSIS OF EX VIVO KNEE KINEMATIC SIMULATOR: A COMPREHENSIVE EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL

Preface: Understanding knee kinematics is a fundamental prerequisite to address restoration in pathological joints; these performances represent the goal to achieve after the treatment. Experimental activities addressing knee kinematics often involve Motion Capture systems to acquire information, both for in vivo and ex vivo studies. This technique allows a complete analysis of the joint kinematics and is able to provide useful results for the comparison mentioned above. Objectives: The definition of a reproducible and straightforward protocol represents a beneficial factor to improve both reliability and the time required: in this study a new protocol for kinematics experimental activities on ex vivo knee specimens was developed, validated and tested. Methods: Synthetic bones were chosen for the analysis and different Total Knee Arthroplasties models were selected (a Cruciate Retaining, a Posterior Stabilized, a Constrained Condylar Knee and a Rotating Hinge). A dedicated frame was used to support and secure the knee specimens and pair the extensor mechanism to a motor. The Motion Capture System was assembled and paired with dedicated marker-sets to be fixed to the specimens. A post-processing tool was developed to analyze the outputs and was validated with a goniometer. A series of force-driven tasks were defined, implemented and run in the motor system for all the different prosthesis configurations and kinematics output were analyzed, comparing the outputs with the expected results. Results: The validation of the system returned satisfying results in terms of correspondence between the angles imposed and the ones measured, with an average error below [Formula: see text] and a standard deviation below [Formula: see text] for each kind of rotation. The results from the different testing were coherent with the type of specimens and prostheses tested. Conclusions: This study proved that the protocol and testing set-up developed for knee kinematics in vitro analysis are able to provide reliable and coherent data, as proven by the post-processing validation and by the testing campaign on synthetic specimens.