Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 472, Issue 1, pp 175–180 | Cite as

Comparison of Total Knee Arthroplasty With Highly Congruent Anterior-stabilized Bearings versus a Cruciate-retaining Design

  • Christopher L. Peters
  • Patrick Mulkey
  • Jill Erickson
  • Michael B. Anderson
  • Christopher E. Pelt
Symposium: 2013 Knee Society Proceedings

Abstract

Background

The use of a highly conforming, anterior-stabilized bearing has been associated with clinical success in a limited number of studies.

Questions/purposes

We compared Knee Society scores, radiographic results, complication rates, and revision rates with the use of anterior-stabilized bearings compared with cruciate-retaining (CR) bearings.

Methods

A series of 382 patients with 468 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) between 2003 and 2008 with minimum 2-year followup were reviewed. Anterior-stabilized bearings comprised 49% (n = 228) of the sample and CR bearings consisted of 51% (n = 240). The decision to use an anterior-stabilized bearing was based on integrity of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) intraoperatively or after sacrifice of the PCL to achieve soft tissue balance. The tibial and femoral component designs were the same regardless of bearing choice. Outcomes were measured with Knee Society scores, complications, revision TKA, and survival. Radiographs were analyzed for component alignment and evidence of loosening.

Results

There was no difference in Knee Society knee scores, radiographic alignment, component loosening, manipulation rate, major complications, or time to revision for patients between the two groups. However, the CR group had significantly more revisions than the anterior-stabilized group (21 CR [1.5%] versus seven anterior-stabilized [4.6%], p = 0.03) at a minimum followup of 5 months (mean, 42 months; range, 5–181 months).

Conclusions

The use of a highly congruent anterior-stabilized bearing for PCL substitution has comparable clinical and radiographic results to traditional CR TKA. These results suggest that this approach is an effective method to achieve stability without the PCL in primary TKA.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Aigner C, Windhager R, Pechmann M, Rehak P, Engeleke K. The influence of an anterior-posterior gliding mobile bearing on range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2257–2262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andriacchi TP, Galante JO. Retention of the posterior cruciate in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1988;3:S13–S19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Andriacchi TP, Galante JO, Fermier RW. The influence of total knee-replacement design on walking and stair-climbing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64:1328–1335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Daniilidis K, Skwara A, Vieth V, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Heindel W, Stuckmann V, Tibesku CO. Highly conforming polyethylene inlays reduce the in vivo variability of knee joint kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2012;19:260–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell Jr CE, Ranawat CS, Scott RD, Thornhill TS, Lapp MA. In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:47–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ewald FC, Jacobs MA, Miegel RE, Walker PS, Poss R, Sledge CB. Kinematic total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:1032–1040.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harner CD, Xerogeanes JW, Livesay GA, Carlin GJ, Smith BA, Kusayama T, Kashiwaguchi S, Woo SL. The human posterior cruciate ligament complex: an interdisciplinary study. Ligament morphology and biomechanical evaluation. Am J Sports Med. 1995;23:736–745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hofmann AA, Tkach TK, Evanich CJ, Camargo MP. Posterior stabilization in total knee arthroplasty with use of an ultracongruent polyethylene insert. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:576–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelman GJ, Biden EN, Wyatt MP, Ritter MA, Colwell CW Jr. Gait laboratory analysis of a posterior cruciate-sparing total knee arthroplasty in stair ascent and descent. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:21–25; discussion 25–26.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laskin RS, Maruyama Y, Villaneuva M, Bourne R. Deep-dish congruent tibial component use in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;380:36–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lozano-Calderon SA, Shen J, Doumato DF, Greene DA, Zelicof SB. Cruciate-Retaining vs posterior-substituting inserts in total knee arthroplasty: functional outcome comparison. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:234–242.e1.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parsley BS, Conditt MA, Bertolusso R, Noble PC. Posterior cruciate ligament substitution is not essential for excellent postoperative outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:127–131.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peters CL. Soft-tissue balancing in primary total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:413–417.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sathappan SS, Wasserman B, Jaffe WL, Bong M, Walsh M, Di Cesare PE. Midterm results of primary total knee arthroplasty using a dished polyethylene insert with a recessed or resected posterior cruciate ligament. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:1012–1016.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schultz RA, Miller DC, Kerr CS, Micheli L. Mechanoreceptors in human cruciate ligaments. A histological study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:1072–1076.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Posterior cruciate supplementing total knee replacement using conforming inserts and cruciate recession: effect on range of motion and radiolucent lines. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:146.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shoji H, Wolf A, Packard S, Yoshino S. Cruciate retained and excised total knee arthroplasty: a comparative study in patients with bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;305:218–222.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tanzer M, Smith K, Burnett S. Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:813–819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Udomkiat P, Meng B, Dorr LD, Wan Z. Functional comparison of posterior cruciate retention and substitution knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;378:192.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J. Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:646–655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wing CK, Kwok-Hing C. Sixteen years’ result of posterior-stabilized TKA. J Knee Surg. 2012;25:245–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher L. Peters
    • 1
  • Patrick Mulkey
    • 1
  • Jill Erickson
    • 1
  • Michael B. Anderson
    • 1
  • Christopher E. Pelt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Utah School of MedicineSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations