| Literature DB >> 22810008 |
Santiago A Lozano-Calderón1, Jianhua Shen, Diana F Doumato, Damon A Greene, Steven B Zelicof.
Abstract
Despite clinical success, it is unclear which one, posterior-substituting (PS) or cruciate-retaining (CR) insert, has superior functional outcomes or longevity. We compared the collected results from 2 institutional review board-approved, multicenter, prospective observational studies following CR (412) and PS inserts (328). Participants were evaluated preoperatively, at 6 weeks, at 3 months, and at 1 and 2 years regarding pain, motion, function (Knee Society Score, Krackow Activity Score, Short Form-36), and procedure variables such as anesthesia and preoperative/perioperative/postoperative complications. Implant longevity was recorded at the 2-year follow-up. Improvement was observed within each group; however, there was no difference between groups in terms of pain, motion, or function at any end point. Two-year survival rate was higher than 95%. A higher incidence of wound hematoma was observed in the PS group. Both inserts can be used expecting satisfactory outcomes and high survival rates at 2 years.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22810008 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.05.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Arthroplasty ISSN: 0883-5403 Impact factor: 4.757