Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 25, Issue 11, pp 3530–3535 | Cite as

Total knee arthroplasty using ultra-congruent inserts can provide similar stability and function compared with cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty

  • Eun-Kyoo Song
  • Hong-An Lim
  • Sang-Don Joo
  • Sung-Kyu Kim
  • Keun-Bae Lee
  • Jong-Keun Seon
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

Recently, ultra-congruent (UC) inserts have shown successful outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that patients in the UC group would not show significantly different in vivo stability or functional outcomes from those in the cruciate-retaining (CR) group.

Methods

The prospective study enrolled patients who had been treated with either CR or UC TKAs (38 cases in each group), after a minimum 3-year follow-up. The same surgical technique was used with the same femoral components in both groups except for the polyethylene inserts (CR or UC). The clinical outcome measures were knee range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, Knee Society (KS) score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) subscale score. The mediolateral laxity at full extension and anteroposterior laxity at 90° flexion were measured in stress radiographs and compared between the two groups.

Results

Both the CR and UC groups showed significant improvements in post-operative ROM, HSS, KS, and WOMAC scores without inter-group differences between two groups. Moreover, there were no differences in mediolateral or anteroposterior laxity between the two groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

TKA with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) resection using the UC design showed comparable functional outcomes with those of CR TKA and provided similar in vivo stability. Therefore, UC inserts can be a good option in TKA without bony box cut when the PCL is damaged during an operation.

Level of evidence

II.

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty Stability Cruciate-retaining Ultra-congruent insert 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

No funding related this study.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Akkawi I, Colle F, Bruni D, Raspugli GF, Bignozzi S, Zaffagnini S et al (2015) Deep-dished highly congruent tibial insert in CR-TKA does not prevent patellar tendon angle increase and patellar anterior translation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(6):1622–1630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andriacchi TP, Galante JO, Fermier RW (1982) The influence of total knee-replacement design on walking and stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64(9):1328–1335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    AppyFedida B, Krief E, Havet E, Massin P, Mertl P (2015) Cruciate-sacrificing total knee arthroplasty and insert design: a radiologic study of sagittal laxity. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2015.07.024 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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(5):710–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dejour D, Deschamps G, Garotta L, Dejour H (1999) Laxity in posterior cruciate sparing and posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 364:182–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ewald FC, Jacobs MA, Miegel RE, Walker PS, Poss R, Sledge CB (1984) Kinematic total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:1032–1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hofmann AA, Tkach TK, Evanich CJ, Camargo MP (2000) Posterior stabilization in total knee arthroplasty with use of an ultracongruent polyethylene insert. J Arthroplasty 15(5):576–583CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Booth RE Jr, Balderstrom PA (1989) The patellar clunk syndrome: a complication of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 241:203–208Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Insall JN, Hood RW, Flawn LB, Sullivan DJ (1983) The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis: a five to nine-year follow-up of the first one hundred consecutive replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65(5):619–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelman GJ, Biden EN, Wyatt MP, Ritter MA, Colwell CW Jr (1989) Gait laboratory analysis of a posterior cruciate-sparing total knee arthroplasty in stair ascent and descent. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:21–25Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim TW, Lee SM, Seong SC, Lee S, Jang J, Lee MC (2015) Different intraoperative kinematics with comparable clinical outcomes of ultracongruent and posterior stabilized mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(9):3036–3043CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lützner J, Firmbach FP, Lützner C, Dexel J, Kirschner S (2015) Similar stability and range of motion between cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting ultracongruent insert total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(6):1638–1643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marion B, Huten D, Boyer P, Jeanrot C, Massin P (2014) Medium-term osteolysis with the Wallaby I®deep-dished total knee prosthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 100(4):403–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Matsuda Y, Ishii Y (2004) In vivo laxity of LCS mobile bearing prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 419:138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mazzucchelli L, Deledda D, Rosso F, Ratto N, Bruzzone M, Bonasia DE et al (2016) Cruciate retaining and cruciate substituting ultra-congruent insert. Ann Transl Med 4(1):2PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parsley BS, Conditt MA, Bertolusso R, Noble PC (2006) Posterior cruciate ligament substitution is not essential for excellent postoperative outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21(6 Suppl 2):127–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters CL, Mulkey P, Erickson J, Anderson MB, Pelt CE (2014) Comparison of total knee arthroplasty with highly congruent anterior-stabilized bearings versus a cruciate-retaining design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):175–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O (1988) Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:6–13Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Song EK, Seon JK, Yoon TR, Park SJ, Cho SG, Yim JH (2007) Comparative study of stability after total knee arthroplasties between navigation system and conventional techniques. J Arthroplasty 22(8):1107–1111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dick W et al (1996) Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index. Z Rheumatol 55(1):40–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sur YJ, Koh IJ, Park SW, Kim HJ, In Y (2015) Condylar-stabilizing tibial inserts do not restore anteroposterior stability after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30(4):587–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vince KG, Insall JN, Kelly MA (1989) The total condylar prosthesis. 10- to 12-year results of a cemented knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71(5):793–797CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wajsfisz A, Biau D, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P (2010) Comparative study of intraoperative knee flexion with three different TKR designs. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(3):242–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eun-Kyoo Song
    • 1
  • Hong-An Lim
    • 1
  • Sang-Don Joo
    • 1
  • Sung-Kyu Kim
    • 1
  • Keun-Bae Lee
    • 1
  • Jong-Keun Seon
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Joint DiseaseChonnam National University Hwasun HospitalHwasun-GunKorea

Personalised recommendations