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

6-month migration sufficient for evaluation of total knee replacements: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This updated meta-analysis evaluates the migration pattern of the tibial component of primary total knee replacements measured with radiostereometric analysis (RSA). We aimed to evaluate whether 6-month maximum total point motion (MTPM) values could be used instead of 1-year MTPM for RSA threshold testing and to present the pooled migration patterns for different implant designs that can be used as a benchmark.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The search included all published RSA studies on migration patterns of tibial components until 2023. Study groups were classified according to their prosthesis brand, fixation, and insert (PFI). Sub-analyses were performed to compare the mean tibial component migration patterns of different implant variables, stratified according to fixation.

RESULTS

96 studies (43 new studies), including 197 study groups and 4,706 knees, were included. Most migration occurred within the first 6 postoperative months (126 study groups: mean 0.58 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.65), followed by minimal migration between 6 and 12 months (197 study groups: mean 0.04 mm, CI 0.03-0.06), irrespective of the fixation method used. Distinct migration patterns were observed among the different fixation methods. No differences were found in migration patterns among cemented components in any of the sub-group analyses conducted. For uncemented implants, trabecular metal surfaced components seemed to migrate less than porous-coated or uncoated components Conclusion: Based on the small difference between MTPM values at 6 months and 1 year, MTPM at 6 months could be used instead of MTPM at 1 year for RSA threshold testing. The pooled migration patterns can be used as benchmark for evaluation of new implants by defining fixation-specific RSA thresholds when combined with implant survival.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty non-inferior to posterior-stabilized prostheses after 5 years: a randomized, controlled trial

PURPOSE

Bicruciate-retaining (BCR) prostheses may improve satisfaction of patient undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to assess whether BCR prostheses provide better clinical outcomes than posterior-stabilized (PS) prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a randomized single-blind control trial involving a total of 77 patients with knee osteoarthritis, randomly assigned to undergo TKA with a BCR or PS implant between 2015 and 2019. Mean follow-up period was 39 months. Clinical and demographic data were extracted manually from medical records. Data acquisition included patient demographics, knee range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes via KSS, KOOS, WOMAC, and SF-12 scores.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were randomized to the PS group and 39 to the BCR group. At the 5-year follow-up, no statistical differences were noted for knee range of motion or patient-reported outcomes between the two groups, except for a greater knee flexion in the early follow-up period in the PS group. Five adverse events occurred in the BCR group compared to none in the PS group (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

BCR TKA yield similar clinical and patient-reported outcomes 5 years following the intervention compared with PS TKA. The BCR TKA had more complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I (Randomized Controlled Trial).

Early outcomes of a novel bicruciate-retaining knee system: a 2-year minimum retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Bicruciate retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was designed to simulate natural knee kinematics and improve proprioception by retaining both the ACL and PCL. While the prospect of the design appears favorable to patients, previous designs have demonstrated modest survivorship rates compared to traditional designs. This study aims to report the early functional outcomes and implant survivorship of a novel BCR design.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multi-center, retrospective study was conducted identifying BCR TKA patients from 2016 to 2017. Patient demographics, quality outcomes, and post-operative complications were collected. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate revision-free survival.

RESULTS

One-hundred thirty-three patients with a mean follow-up time of 2.35 ± 0.25 years (range: 2.00-2.87 years) were identified. Patients receiving BCR TKA were, on average, 61.46 ± 9.27 years-old, obese (BMI = 31.80 ± 6.01 kg/m²), predominantly white (71.4%), and female (69.9%). The device was most often implanted using standard instruments (85.7%) compared to computer-assisted navigation (13.5%). Average length-of-stay was 1.77 ± 0.97 days. Six patients had a reoperation; three (2.5%) full revisions occurred for: infection (n = 1), arthrofibrosis (n = 1), and ACL rupture (n = 1); one (0.8%) tibial revision occurred for: arthrofibrosis; two (1.5%) liner exchanges occurred for: infection (n = 1) and arthrofibrosis (n = 1). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis of cumulative failure at 2-year showed a survival rate of 96.2% (95% confidence interval, 91.2-98.4%) for all-cause reoperation, 97.3% (91.6-99.1%) for aseptic revision, and 100% for mechanical failure.

CONCLUSION

Survivorship was 96.2% for all-cause reoperation, 97.3% for aseptic revision, and 100% for mechanical implant failure at 2-years. This novel BCR TKA demonstrated no implant-related complications and excellent survivorship outcomes over 2 years with comparable revision rates to those previously reported in the literature.

Fluoroscopic and radiostereometric analysis of a bicruciate-retaining versus a posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare a bicruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA design in terms of kinematics, measured using fluoroscopy and stability as micromotion using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

METHODS

A total of 40 patients with end-stage osteoarthritis were included in this randomized controlled trial. All patients performed a step-up and lunge task in front of a monoplane fluoroscope one year postoperatively. Femorotibial contact point (CP) locations were determined at every flexion angle and compared between the groups. RSA images were taken at baseline, six weeks, three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Clinical and functional outcomes were compared postoperatively for two years.

RESULTS

The BCR-TKA demonstrated a kinematic pattern comparable to the natural knee's screw-home mechanism in the step-up task. In the lunge task, the medial CP of the BCR-TKA was more anterior in the early flexion phase, while laterally the CP was more posterior during the entire movement cycle. The BCR-TKA group showed higher tibial migration. No differences were found for the clinical and functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The BCR-TKA shows a different kinematic pattern in early flexion/late extension compared to the CR-TKA. The difference between both implants is mostly visible in the flexion phase in which the anterior cruciate ligament is effective; however, both designs fail to fully replicate the motion of a natural knee. The higher migration of the BCR-TKA was concerning and highlights the importance of longer follow-up.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):35-46.

Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Fixed Tibial Inserts: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Multiple options are available for the tibial insert in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic review (SR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) could assist with decision making. We aim to show that designs with increased conformity may improve function and satisfaction without an increase in complications though posterior stabilized (PS) inserts will likely have more flexion.

Methods

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed. Studies were limited to RCTs evaluating cruciate retaining (CR), PS, anterior stabilized (AS), medial pivot (MP), bicruciate retaining (BR), and bicruciate stabilizing (BCS) inserts. Mean differences (MD) were used for patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and odds ratios (OR) for reoperation rates and MUA. A systematic review was performed for satisfaction.

Results

27 trials were identified. The NMA showed no difference from a statistical or clinical standpoint for PROMs evaluated. There was a statistical difference for increased flexion for PS knees (3 degrees p 0.04). There were no differences in the MUA or reoperation rates. There was insufficient information to determine if a specific insert improved satisfaction.

Discussion

The results of this NMA show no statistical or clinical difference in PROMs. There was higher flexion for PS knees though the amount was not clinically significant. There was insufficient data for conclusions on patient satisfaction. Therefore, the surgeon should evaluate the clinical situation to determine the best insert rather than choose and insert based on functional scores, patient satisfaction, or complication rates.