12-Year clinical and radiological results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

A subject of ongoing debate among orthopedic surgeons is the importance of preserving the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but long-term survival studies are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare long-term survival rates, and clinical and radiological follow up of a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) versus posterior-stabilizing (PS) implant design of an AGC TKA.

METHODS

A total of 114 patients were included in the survival analysis (PCR n = 61; PS n = 53). Forty-five patients (PCR n = 25; PS n = 20) participated in the long-term follow up using patient-reported outcome measures (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Kujala score (measuring anterior knee pain)). Thirty-one patients were assessed with a physical test (Knee Society Score (KSS)) and radiographs.

RESULTS

Overall survival rate was 95.6% (PCR 98.4% vs. PS 92.5%), with five patients having a major revision (PCR n = 1 vs. PS n = 4, respectively). Satisfying outcome scores for both groups were described at on average 12-year follow up with no significant differences in KSS knee and function scores, WOMAC, SF-36, or Kujala scores between groups. Radiographically, there were no findings of femoral or tibial loosening or polyethylene wear in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Good long-term survival rates were described for the PCR and the PS design of an AGC TKA. There were no significant differences in clinical and radiological outcomes between a PCR and a PS design 12 years postoperatively.

Clinical relevance of roll-back replacement of ultra congruent total knee arthroplasty: comparison of mid-term outcomes with posterior stabilizing design

INTRODUCTION

The outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain controversial, and we do not know which factors are important for successful outcomes. This study aimed to compare the mid-term outcomes of different conceptual designs by evaluating the radiological and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 478 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were enrolled and allocated into groups I [posterior stabilizing (PS) with anterior referencing (AR)], II [PS with posterior referencing (PR), and III [ultra-congruent (UC) TKA)]. Preoperative findings, last follow-up clinical outcomes, and final follow-up radiological and indirect assessments of the femoral rollback were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 72.6 ± 12.9 months. The tourniquet was used samely applied to every group. Flexion contracture was significantly larger in group III than in groups I and II (3.3 ± 2.7, p < 0.001), and further flexion was significantly smaller in group III (130.0° ± 2.7°, p < 0.001). Among the radiological parameters, posterior osteophyte formation was the most common in group III (67.8%). The rollback distance was significantly smaller in group III than in groups I and II (p < 0.001). The active deep flexion angle was affected by the posterior condylar offset (PCO) ratio, and the contact point changed the distance (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

PS TKAs showed better ROMs than UC TKAs; however, no differences were noted in the clinical outcome scales. The flexion angle was affected by the PCOR and rollback at both PS and UC TKAs. However, rollback negatively affected the flexion angle during UC TKAs. An inappropriate femoral rollback was identified, and femoral osteophyte formation was determined to be the most prominent in UC TKAs. Level of evidence Level III comparative study.

No difference in PROMs between robotic-assisted CR versus PS total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary study

The purpose of this study was to determine if significant clinical differences exist in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between PS and CR TKAs implanted using robotic-assisted technology. This was an IRB-approved retrospective study from an institutional database evaluating 214 knees in 190 patients. Inclusion criteria included: primary RA-TKA, age 22-89 at the time of surgery, preoperative coronal limb deformity within 15º of neutral alignment, and minimum 1-year follow-up. The PS cohort consisted of 103 patients with 107 RA-TKAs, whereas the CR cohort consisted of 87 patients with 107 RA-TKAs. Cohorts were compared on the basis of demographics and PROMs (KSS knee, KSS function, FJS-12, KOOS-JR, WOMAC, and 5-point satisfaction Likert scale) collected preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up. Statistical analyses comparing measures were conducted via Student's t tests for continuous data and Chi-squared analyses for categorical data. There were no significant differences identified in short-term PROMs at 1-year follow-up between cohorts (all p values > 0.05). 93.1% of patients with CR knees and 94.7% of patients with PS knees reported a satisfaction level of "very satisfied" or "satisfied". Revision arthroplasty occurred in six knees (2.8%, 3 knees in CR cohort, 3 knees in PS cohort) with no differences in overall complications between groups. The use of RA-TKA technology promoted high patient satisfaction scores within this study, independent of CR or PS implant type with no significant differences in PROMs, satisfaction, revisions, or complications between the two groups.