PURPOSE: Fully conforming, mobile-bearing total knee replacement (TKR) was initially designed using a posterior cruciate-sacrificing (CS) technique. Rotating-platform TKR that could also be performed retaining the posterior cruciate developed afterwards. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of patients who had either cruciate-retaining (CR) or cruciate-sacrificing (CS) TKR at a minimum follow-up of 2 years with the same prosthetic design. METHODS: One hundred and two consecutive TKR (88 patients) were performed at the same institution either with CS (56 TKR-49 patients) or with CR (46 TKR-39 patients) technique. Patients were followed at a minimum of 2 years. Patients were evaluated for articular range of motion, complication rate (infection, loosening) and clinical outcome measures included the pain and functional components of the Knee Society Score. RESULTS: The two groups (CS, CR) were homogeneous. At final follow-up, no significant difference was seen between the two surgical techniques in terms of ROM, pain and functional level, and revision rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that for this given mobile-bearing, fully conforming prosthetic design, sacrificing or resecting the PCL does not influence the clinical and functional outcomes at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Surgeons may indifferently choose one of the two options (CS, CR) according to their preferences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, level IV.
PURPOSE: Fully conforming, mobile-bearing total knee replacement (TKR) was initially designed using a posterior cruciate-sacrificing (CS) technique. Rotating-platform TKR that could also be performed retaining the posterior cruciate developed afterwards. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and functional outcomes of patients who had either cruciate-retaining (CR) or cruciate-sacrificing (CS) TKR at a minimum follow-up of 2 years with the same prosthetic design. METHODS: One hundred and two consecutive TKR (88 patients) were performed at the same institution either with CS (56 TKR-49 patients) or with CR (46 TKR-39 patients) technique. Patients were followed at a minimum of 2 years. Patients were evaluated for articular range of motion, complication rate (infection, loosening) and clinical outcome measures included the pain and functional components of the Knee Society Score. RESULTS: The two groups (CS, CR) were homogeneous. At final follow-up, no significant difference was seen between the two surgical techniques in terms of ROM, pain and functional level, and revision rate. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that for this given mobile-bearing, fully conforming prosthetic design, sacrificing or resecting the PCL does not influence the clinical and functional outcomes at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Surgeons may indifferently choose one of the two options (CS, CR) according to their preferences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series, level IV.
Authors: Michael A Conditt; Philip C Noble; Roberto Bertolusso; Joshua Woody; Brian S Parsley Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Julien Chouteau; Jean Luc Lerat; Rodolph Testa; Bernard Moyen; Scott A Banks; Banks A Scott Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2008-08-12 Impact factor: 4.757