, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 127-129
Date: 28 Apr 2006

A Comparison of the PCL-Retaining AGC and Posterior Stabilizing Legacy Prostheses for Total Knee Arthroplasty

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access
This is an excerpt from the content

Introduction

Excellent clinical results have been reported for both posterior-stabilized and posterior cruciate ligament retaining prosthesis for total knee arthroplasty [16]. Several studies have directly compared these devices. The studies have utilized a variety of knee scoring systems, questionnaires, and radiographic analysis to evaluate the results. Many of these studies have concluded that there is no difference between the posterior-stabilizing and PCL retaining prostheses [712]. However, a report by Conditt et al [11] suggested that posterior-stabilized prostheses inhibit deep flexion in some movements, whereas reports by Maruyama et al [9] and Hirsch et al [10] have determined that these prostheses provide a greater range of motion.

The purpose of this study is to compare two devices used in the authors' facility: the PCL retaining AGC (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) and the posterior-stabilizing Legacy (Zimmer Warsaw, IN, USA).

Materials and methods

Ninety-nine Legacy Posterior-Stab