INTRODUCTION: A stress arthrometry study of 77 knees undergoing total knee arthroplasty was performed to determine the difference in anteroposterior (AP) laxity between posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-retaining (PCLR) and PCL-substituting (PCLS) prostheses using the Genesis I TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three knees had PCLR and 24 had PCLS prostheses. The selected patients had successful arthroplasties after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. AP laxity was measured with a KT-2000 arthrometer (Medmetric, San Diego, CA, USA) using standard protocols. RESULTS: At 30 degrees of flexion, there was no statistical difference in anterior (PCLR: 4.7 mm, PCLS: 4.5 mm), posterior (PCLR: 1.1 mm, PCLS: 0.7 mm), or total (PCLR: 5.8 mm, PCLS: 5.3 mm) displacement. At 75 degrees , significant differences were seen in both anterior (PCLR: 3.3 mm, PCLS: 2.3 mm) and total (PCLR: 4.8 mm, PCLS: 3.4 mm) displacement (p=0.001 and p=0.009, respectively), although there was no statistical difference in posterior displacement (PCLR: 1.5 mm, PCLS: 1.1 mm). CONCLUSION: The above values are considered the suitable degree of AP laxity in total knee arthroplasty for a satisfactory clinical outcome 5-9 years after surgery. The PCL in a PCLR prosthesis and the central tibial spine and femoral cam in a PCLS prosthesis might play comparable roles in determining the laxity in the posterior direction in these prostheses.
INTRODUCTION: A stress arthrometry study of 77 knees undergoing total knee arthroplasty was performed to determine the difference in anteroposterior (AP) laxity between posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-retaining (PCLR) and PCL-substituting (PCLS) prostheses using the Genesis I TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-three knees had PCLR and 24 had PCLS prostheses. The selected patients had successful arthroplasties after a minimum follow-up of 5 years. AP laxity was measured with a KT-2000 arthrometer (Medmetric, San Diego, CA, USA) using standard protocols. RESULTS: At 30 degrees of flexion, there was no statistical difference in anterior (PCLR: 4.7 mm, PCLS: 4.5 mm), posterior (PCLR: 1.1 mm, PCLS: 0.7 mm), or total (PCLR: 5.8 mm, PCLS: 5.3 mm) displacement. At 75 degrees , significant differences were seen in both anterior (PCLR: 3.3 mm, PCLS: 2.3 mm) and total (PCLR: 4.8 mm, PCLS: 3.4 mm) displacement (p=0.001 and p=0.009, respectively), although there was no statistical difference in posterior displacement (PCLR: 1.5 mm, PCLS: 1.1 mm). CONCLUSION: The above values are considered the suitable degree of AP laxity in total knee arthroplasty for a satisfactory clinical outcome 5-9 years after surgery. The PCL in a PCLR prosthesis and the central tibial spine and femoral cam in a PCLS prosthesis might play comparable roles in determining the laxity in the posterior direction in these prostheses.
Authors: C T H van Hal; G G van Hellemondt; A B Wymenga; W C H Jacobs Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2007-04-17 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Kiron K Athwal; Hadi El Daou; Christoph Kittl; Andrew J Davies; David J Deehan; Andrew A Amis Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 4.342