Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- 1.6k Downloads
To compare the outcomes between posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to evaluate which approach is superior.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing posterior cruciate-retaining with posterior stabilized TKA were reviewed which were published up to August 2011. Methodological quality of each included RCT was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The relevant data were analysed using Review Manager 5.1. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the quality of the evidence.
Eight RCTs involving 888 patients with 963 knee joints met predetermined inclusion criteria. The postoperative range of motion (ROM) and flexion angle were 11.07° and 2.88° higher for patients with a posterior stabilized TKA than those with a posterior cruciate-retaining TKA, respectively [weighted mean difference (WMD), −11.07; 95 % confidence interval (CI), −18.06 to −4.08; p < 0.01 and WMD, −2.88; 95 % CI, −5.63 to −0.12; p = 0.04]. No statistical differences were observed between the two designs for knee society pain score, extension angle, 2- and 5-year knee society score, 2- and 5-year knee society function score and complications after primary TKA.
Posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized TKA have similar clinical outcomes with regard to knee function, postoperative knee pain and the other complications. Prosthesis survivorship for both posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized TKA is satisfactory, and there are no differences between them at short- and middle-term follow-up.
Level of evidence
KeywordsPosterior cruciate ligament Total knee arthroplasty Posterior stabilized design Posterior cruciate-retaining design Randomized controlled trials Meta-analysis
Conflict of interest
All authors have contributed significantly and are in agreement with the content of the manuscript. All authors have no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
- 20.Jacobs WC, Clement DJ, Wymenga AB (2005) Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev PMID:16235383Google Scholar
- 31.Puloski SK, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (2001) Tibial post wear in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. An unrecognized source of polyethylene debris. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:A390–A397Google Scholar
- 34.Saari T, Tranberg R, Zügner R, Uvehammer J, Kärrholm J (2004) The effect of tibial insert design on rising from a chair; motion analysis after total knee replacement. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 19:951–956Google Scholar
- 37.Seon JK, Park JK, Shin YJ, Seo HY, Lee KB, Song EK (2011) Comparisons of kinematics and range of motion in high-flexion total knee arthroplasty: cruciate retaining versus substituting designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 93:2072–2078Google Scholar
- 42.van den Boom LG, Brouwer RW, van den Akker-Scheek I, Bulstra SK, van Raaij JJ (2009) Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:119PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Wang CJ, Wang JW, Chen HS (2004) Comparing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty and cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective clinical study. Chang Gung Med 27:578–585Google Scholar