Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1638–1643 | Cite as

Similar stability and range of motion between cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting ultracongruent insert total knee arthroplasty

  • Jörg LütznerEmail author
  • F.-P. Firmbach
  • C. Lützner
  • J. Dexel
  • S. Kirschner



The use of an ultracongruent (UC) insert with a standard femoral component for substitution of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is a bone-preserving and therefore interesting alternative to the established box and cam mechanism of posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite the regular use of these UC inserts, there is little evidence about stability and range of motion (ROM).


The aim of this study was to evaluate the stability and ROM in standard cruciate-retaining (CR) and cruciate-substituting UC inserts of the same TKA. In 39 patients, intraoperative measurements of stability and ROM were taken (1) before soft tissue release and bone cuts, (2) after implantation of a CR TKA and (3) after resection of the PCL and substitution with an UC insert. All measurements were taken using a navigation system.


Stability measurements demonstrated no differences between CR (PCL intact) and UC TKA (PCL resected), but significantly increased anteroposterior translation at 60° and 90° of knee flexion compared with the preoperative condition. ROM measurements demonstrated improvement of knee flexion from preoperatively mean 105° (SD 14.1°) to intraoperative 120.2° (SD 6.7°) with the CR and 121.0° (SD 7.5°) with the UC insert and 113.5° (SD 14.0°) at the 1-year follow-up.


This study demonstrates similar stability of an UC insert compared with a standard CR insert. UC inserts are therefore a bone-preserving solution if the PCL needs to be substituted. ROM was not improved after resection of the PCL and substitution with the UC insert.

Level of evidence



TKA TKR Ultracongruent insert UC insert Stability Range of motion Results 



The authors are grateful to Brit Brethfeld and Franziska Beyer for her valuable assistance during follow-up and data management.

Conflict of interest

This study was supported by a research grant from Aesculap AG (Tuttlingen, Germany).


  1. 1.
    Argenson JN, Boisgard S, Parratte S et al (2013) Survival analysis of total knee arthroplasty at a minimum 10 years’ follow-up: a multicenter French nationwide study including 846 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99:385–390CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bercik MJ, Joshi A, Parvizi J (2013) Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast 28:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE Jr et al (1998) In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 356:47–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hofmann AA, Tkach TK, Evanich CJ, Camargo MP (2000) Posterior stabilization in total knee arthroplasty with use of an ultracongruent polyethylene insert. J Arthroplast 15:576–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jacobs WC, Clement DJ, Wymenga AB (2005) Retention versus removal of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement: a systematic literature review within the Cochrane framework. Acta Orthop 76:757–768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laskin RS, Maruyama Y, Villaneuva M, Bourne R (2000) Deep-dish congruent tibial component use in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:36–44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee DC, Kim DH, Scott RD, Suthers K (1998) Intraoperative flexion against gravity as an indication of ultimate range of motion in individual cases after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 13:500–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Massin P, Boyer P, Hajage D, Kilian P, Tubach F (2011) Intra-operative navigation of knee kinematics and the influence of osteoarthritis. Knee 18:259–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massin P, Boyer P, Sabourin M (2012) Less femorotibial rotation and AP translation in deep-dished total knee arthroplasty. An intraoperative kinematic study using navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1714–1719CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Sieverding M et al (2009) The 12-item Oxford Knee Score: cross-cultural adaptation into German and assessment of its psychometric properties in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil 17:49–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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 Arthroplast 21:127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 472:175–180CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siebel T, Kafer W (2003) In vitro investigation of knee joint kinematics following cruciate retaining versus cruciate sacrificing total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 69:433–440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Siston RA, Giori NJ, Goodman SB, Delp SL (2006) Intraoperative passive kinematics of osteoarthritic knees before and after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 24:1607–1614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wajsfisz A, Biau D, Boisrenoult P, Beaufils P (2010) Comparative study of intraoperative knee flexion with three different TKR designs. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:242–248CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplast 13:890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Lützner
    • 1
    Email author
  • F.-P. Firmbach
    • 2
  • C. Lützner
    • 1
  • J. Dexel
    • 1
  • S. Kirschner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Carl Gustav CarusTU DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Aesculap AGTuttlingenGermany

Personalised recommendations