Advertisement

Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Ning Li
  • Yang Tan
  • Yu Deng
  • Liaobin ChenEmail author
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the outcomes between posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to evaluate which approach is superior.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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

II.

Keywords

Posterior cruciate ligament Total knee arthroplasty Posterior stabilized design Posterior cruciate-retaining design Randomized controlled trials Meta-analysis 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel MP, Morrey ME, Jensen MR, Morrey BF (2011) Increased long-term survival of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-stabilizing total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:2072–2078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aglietti P, Baldini A, Buzzi R, Lup D, De Luca L (2005) Comparison of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 20:145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    GRADE Working Group (2004) Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Banks SA, Hodge WA (2004) 2003 Hap Paul Award Paper of the International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty. Design and activity dependence of kinematics in fixed and mobile-bearing knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 19:809–816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buehler KO, Venn-Watson E, D’Lima DD, Colwell CW Jr (2000) The press-fit condylar total knee system: 8–10 year results with a posterior cruciate-retaining design. J Arthroplasty 15:698–701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catani F, Leardini A, Ensini A, Cucca G, Bragonzoni L, Toksvig-Larsen S, Giannini S (2004) The stability of the cemented tibial component of total knee arthroplasty: posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized design. J Arthroplasty 19:775–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chalidis BE, Sachinis NP, Papadopoulos P, Petsatodis E, Christodoulou AG, Petsatodis G (2011) Long-term results of posterior-cruciate-retaining Genesis I total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 16:726–731PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaudhary R, Beaupre LA, Johnston DW (2008) Knee range of motion during the first two years after use of posterior cruciate-stabilizing or posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses. A randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:2579–2586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chouteau J, Lerat JL, Testa R, Moyen B, Banks SA (2009) Sagittal laxity after posterior cruciate ligament-retaining mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:710–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Morton NA (2009) The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother 55:129–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gill GS, Joshi AB (2001) Long-term results of kinematic condylar knee replacement. An analysis of 404 knees. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:355–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harato K, Bourne RB, Victor J, Snyder M, Hart J, Ries MD (2008) Midterm comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus-substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II prosthesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial. Knee 15:217–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heyse TJ, Becher C, Kron N, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Schofer MD, Tibesku CO, Fuchs-Winkelmann S (2010) Patellofemoral pressure after TKA in vitro: highly conforming versus posterior stabilized inlays. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130:191–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hofer JK, Gejo R, McGarry MH, Lee TQ (2011) Effects of kneeling on tibiofemoral contact pressure and area in posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior cruciate—sacrificing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:620–624PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    In Y, Kim JM, Woo YK, Choi NY, Sohn JM, Koh HS (2009) Factors affecting flexion gap tightness in cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:317–321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Insall JN, Lachiewicz PF, Burstein AH (1982) The posterior stabilized condylar prosthesis: a modification of the total condylar design. Two to four year clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:1317–1323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Matsuda Y, Takeda M, Kiga H, Toyabe S (2008) Range of motion during the perioperative period in total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:795–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Takeda M, Sato J, Toyabe S (2011) Prediction of range of motion 2 years after mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: PCL-retaining versus PCL–sacrificing. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:2002–2008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 21.
    Joglekar S, Gioe TJ, Yoon P, Schwartz MH (2012) Gait analysis comparison of cruciate retaining and substituting TKA following PCL sacrifice. Knee 19:279–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kim YH, Choi Y, Kwon OR, Kim JS (2009) Functional outcome and range of motion of high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining and high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:753–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kolisek FR, McGrath MS, Marker DR, Jessup N, Seyler TM, Mont MA, Lowry Barnes C (2009) Posterior-stabilized versus posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Iowa Orthop J 29:23–27PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Li PL, Zamora J, Bentley G (1999) The results at ten years of the Insall-Burstein II total knee replacement. Clinical, radiological and survivorship studies. J Bone Joint Surg Br 81:647–653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Elkins M (2003) Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther 83:713–721PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maruyama S, Yoshiya S, Matsui N, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M (2004) Functional comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19:349–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Matsumoto T, Kuroda R, Kubo S, Muratsu H, Mizuno K, Kurosaka M (2009) The intra-operative joint gap in cruciate-retaining compared with posterior-stabilised total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:475–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Kubo S, Matsushita T, Kurosaka M, Kuroda R (2011) Soft tissue tension in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26:788–795PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mauerhan DR (2003) Fracture of the polyethylene tibial post in a posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty mimicking patellar clunk syndrome: a report of 5 cases. J Arthroplasty 2003(18):942–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mikulak SA, Mahoney OM, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP (2001) Loosening and osteolysis with the press-fit condylar posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:398–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. 32.
    Rand JA, Trousdale RT, Ilstrup DM, Harmsen WS (2003) Factors affecting the durability of primary total knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:259–265PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rossi R, Bruzzone M, Bonasia DE, Marmotti A, Castoldi F (2010) Evaluation of tibial rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:889–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 35.
    Saari T, Tranberg R, Zügner R, Uvehammer J, Kärrholm J (2004) Total knee replacement influences both knee and hip joint kinematics during stair climbing. Int Orthop 28:82–86PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saari T, Uvehammer J, Carlsson LV, Regnér L, Kärrholm J (2006) Influence of polyethylene constraint on tibial component fixation in total knee arthroplasty: follow-up report after 5 years. J Arthroplasty 21:1032–1037PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 38.
    Swanik CB, Lephart SM, Rubash HE (2004) Proprioception, kinesthesia, and balance after total knee arthroplasty with cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:328–334PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Takayama K, Matsumoto T, Kubo S, Muratsu H, Ishida K, Matsushita T, Kurosaka M, Kuroda R (2012) Influence of intra-operative joint gaps on post-operative flexion angle in posterior cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:532–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tanzer M, Smith K, Burnett S (2002) Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: balancing the gap. J Arthroplasty 17:813–819PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Thadani PJ, Vince KG, Ortaaslan SG, Blackburn DC, Cudiamat CV (2000) 10–12 year followup of the Insall-Burstein I total knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:17–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 43.
    Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG (1998) The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 51:1235–1241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J (2005) Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:646–655PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopedicsZhongnan Hospital of Wuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations