Literature DB >> 22810008

Cruciate-retaining vs posterior-substituting inserts in total knee arthroplasty: functional outcome comparison.

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.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of total knee arthroplasty with highly congruent anterior-stabilized bearings versus a cruciate-retaining design.

Authors:  Christopher L Peters; Patrick Mulkey; Jill Erickson; Michael B Anderson; Christopher E Pelt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Cruciate Retaining compared with Posterior Stabilised Nexgen total knee arthroplasty: results at 10 years in a matched cohort.

Authors:  Aiw Mayne; H P Harshavardhan; L R Johnston; W Wang; A Jariwala
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties using PCL-retaining and PCL-substituting implants in the same patients.

Authors:  Yoshinori Ishii; Hideo Noguchi; Junko Sato; Tetsuya Sakurai; Shin-Ichi Toyabe
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Impact of socioeconomic factors on outcome of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Robert L Barrack; Erin L Ruh; Jiajing Chen; Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Javad Parvizi; Craig J Della Valle; William G Hamilton; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Quality of life after staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a minimum five-year follow-up study of seventy-eight patients.

Authors:  Takehiko Sugita; Naohisa Miyatake; Toshimi Aizawa; Akira Sasaki; Masayuki Kamimura; Atsushi Takahashi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Comparison of outcomes after bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty using posterior-substituting versus cruciate-retaining prostheses.

Authors:  Hong-Guang Liu; Wei Zhu; Zhen-Xiang Zhang
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 1.484

7.  Does Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty Show Better Quadriceps Recovery than Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty? - Objective Measurement with a Dynamometer in 102 Knees.

Authors:  Kye-Youl Cho; Kang-Il Kim; Sang-Jun Song; Dae-Kyung Bae
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2016-11-04

8.  Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity.

Authors:  Ethem Ayhan Ünkar; Yusuf Öztürkmen; Erhan Şükür; Engin Çarkçı; Murat Mert
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 1.511

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.