Cruciate-retaining vs posterior-substituting inserts in total knee arthroplasty: functional outcome comparison.
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.
Orthopaedic Surgery Department, Westchester Medical Center, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, USA.
Santiago A
SA
Lozano-Calderón
Jianhua
J
Shen
Diana F
DF
Doumato
Damon A
DA
Greene
Steven B
SB
Zelicof
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000601:surgery*; D007720:Knee Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D020370:Osteoarthritis, Knee / Q000601:surgery*; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D020127:Recovery of Function; D016896:Treatment Outcome