Riccardo D'Ambrosi1,2, Laura Mangiavini3,4, Rafael Loucas5, Marios Loucas5, Angela Brivio6,7, Ilaria Mariani8, Nicola Ursino3, Filippo Migliorini9. 1. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. riccardo.dambrosi@hotmail.it. 2. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. riccardo.dambrosi@hotmail.it. 3. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 5. Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Istituto Clinico Città Studi, Milan, Italy. 7. Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK. 8. Institute for Maternal, Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy. 9. Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Hospital, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised implant designs are available for primary total knee arthroplasty. However, whether the implant design is associated with a difference in the level of activity still remains unclear. This clinical trial compared posterior-stabilised and cruciate-retaining implants in sport-related patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, rate of return to sport, and weekly time dedicated to sport in active adults. It was also hypothesised that in young and active patients both implants lead to a similar rate of return to sport in terms of hours per week, type of sport, and joint mobility. METHODS: All patients were evaluated preoperatively and for a minimum of 36 months follow-up. The University of California Los Angeles activity scores, High-Activity Arthroplasty Score, and Visual Analogue Scale were administered preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The range of motion was investigated at admission and the last follow-up. Data concerning the hours per week dedicated to sports and the type of sport practiced were also collected at admission and at the last follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier Curve was performed to compare implant survivorship. RESULTS: Data from 227 procedures (cruciate-retaining: 109, posterior-stabilised: 118) were prospectively collected. At the last follow-up, no difference was reported in The University of California Los Angeles activity scores (p = 0.6), High-Activity Arthroplasty Score (p = 0.1), Visual Analogue Scale (p = 0.9), flexion (p = 0.7) and extension (p = 0.4). No difference was found in the rate of return (p = 0.1) and weekly hours dedicated to sport (p = 0.3). The Kaplan-Meier curve evidenced no statistically significant difference in implant survivorship (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: At approximately five years of follow-up, no difference was reported between cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised implants in active adults in sport-related patient-reported outcomes measures, range of motion, pain, weekly time dedicated to sport, rate of return to sport, and implant survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective study.
PURPOSE: Cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised implant designs are available for primary total knee arthroplasty. However, whether the implant design is associated with a difference in the level of activity still remains unclear. This clinical trial compared posterior-stabilised and cruciate-retaining implants in sport-related patient-reported outcome measures, range of motion, rate of return to sport, and weekly time dedicated to sport in active adults. It was also hypothesised that in young and active patients both implants lead to a similar rate of return to sport in terms of hours per week, type of sport, and joint mobility. METHODS: All patients were evaluated preoperatively and for a minimum of 36 months follow-up. The University of California Los Angeles activity scores, High-Activity Arthroplasty Score, and Visual Analogue Scale were administered preoperatively and at the last follow-up. The range of motion was investigated at admission and the last follow-up. Data concerning the hours per week dedicated to sports and the type of sport practiced were also collected at admission and at the last follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier Curve was performed to compare implant survivorship. RESULTS: Data from 227 procedures (cruciate-retaining: 109, posterior-stabilised: 118) were prospectively collected. At the last follow-up, no difference was reported in The University of California Los Angeles activity scores (p = 0.6), High-Activity Arthroplasty Score (p = 0.1), Visual Analogue Scale (p = 0.9), flexion (p = 0.7) and extension (p = 0.4). No difference was found in the rate of return (p = 0.1) and weekly hours dedicated to sport (p = 0.3). The Kaplan-Meier curve evidenced no statistically significant difference in implant survivorship (p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: At approximately five years of follow-up, no difference was reported between cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised implants in active adults in sport-related patient-reported outcomes measures, range of motion, pain, weekly time dedicated to sport, rate of return to sport, and implant survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective study.
Authors: A Magan; J Baawa-Ameyaw; B Kayani; G Radhakrishnan; F Ronca; F S Haddad Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-09-26 Impact factor: 2.928