Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2018; 31(04): 321-340
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603902
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Outcomes of Posterior-Stabilized Compared with Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

Umile Giuseppe Longo
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Campus Bio Medico University, Rome, Italy
,
Mauro Ciuffreda
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Campus Bio Medico University, Rome, Italy
,
Nicholas Mannering
2   Department of Orthopaedics, Melbourne Institute, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
Valerio D'Andrea
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Campus Bio Medico University, Rome, Italy
,
Joel Locher
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Campus Bio Medico University, Rome, Italy
,
Giuseppe Salvatore
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Campus Bio Medico University, Rome, Italy
,
Vincenzo Denaro
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Campus Bio Medico University, Rome, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

10 September 2016

02 May 2017

Publication Date:
30 June 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review is to compare clinical outcome scores, rate of complications, and range of motion (ROM) of posterior-stabilized (PS) and cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) both pre- and postoperatively to establish which of the two kinds of implants have the best efficiency. A comprehensive search was performed of studies comparing CR and PS TKAs on PubMed, OVID/Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, Google scholar, and Embase databases. Finally, 37 studies were selected with a total of 5,407 knees in 4,445 patients. For the PS knees, the Knee Society Functional Score (KSFS) improved from 44.6 to 77.6 (p = 0.04), extension decreased from 6.6 to 1.8 degrees (p-value), and flexion increased from 115.2 to 119.4 degrees (p < 0.00001), compared with the CR knees. No significant difference in the Knee Society objective score (KSOS) (p = 0.82) or complication rates (p = 0.29) was found. The overall complication rate was 3.9%, 213 in 5,407 knees. Surgeons must be careful in interpreting these results, as an improved ROM for the PS group may not correlate to better patient outcomes. This meta-analysis has demonstrated that PS TKA has a statistically significant greater postoperative improvement of KSFS (p = 0.04), flexion (p < 0.00001), and extension (p = 0.02), compared with the CR group. These findings seem to lead the surgeons to prefer the PS design for TKAs especially to achieve a higher postoperative ROM in patients with high functional demands. On the contrary, the CR and PS TKAs have similar results in terms of complications and most of clinical outcomes analyzed in the included studies. Therefore, the long-term follow-up of high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed to clarify which of the two types of prosthesis provide the better clinical outcome and the lower rate of complications for osteoarthritis patients in particular cohorts. This is a systematic review (level II).

Keywords

knee - arthroplasty - cruciate-retaining - posterior-stabilized
 

  • References

  • 1 Kawakami Y, Matsumoto T, Takayama K. , et al. Intermediate-term comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty using the new knee scoring system. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (12) e1127-e1132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Delport HP. The advantage of a total knee arthroplasty with rotating platform is only theoretical: prospective analysis of 1,152 arthroplasties. Open Orthop J 2013; 7: 635-640
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Harato K, Bourne RB, Victor J, Snyder M, Hart J, Ries MD. Midterm comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus -substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II prosthesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial. Knee 2008; 15 (03) 217-221
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Waddell DD, Sedacki K, Yang Y, Fitch DA. Early radiographic and functional outcomes of a cancellous titanium-coated tibial component for total knee arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 2016; 100 (01) 71-74
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Chen JY, Lo NN, Chong HC. , et al. Cruciate retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty after previous high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (12) 3607-3613
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Vermesan D, Trocan I, Prejbeanu R. , et al. Reduced operating time but not blood loss with cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Clin Med Res 2015; 7 (03) 171-175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Maruyama S, Yoshiya S, Matsui N, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M. Functional comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (03) 349-353
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Mouttet A, Sourdet V. EUROP total knee prosthesis with or without posterior cruciate ligament retention? Comparative study at mid-term follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014; 100 (08) 895-900
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J. Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (05) 646-655
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Atzori F, Sabatini L, Deledda D, Schirò M, Lo Baido R, Massè A. Evaluation of anterior knee pain in a PS total knee arthroplasty: the role of patella-friendly femoral component and patellar size. Musculoskelet Surg 2015; 99 (01) 75-83
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Notarnicola A, Moretti L, Tafuri S, Vacca A, Marella G, Moretti B. Postoperative pain monitor after total knee replacement. Musculoskelet Surg 2011; 95 (01) 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Rosenberg AG. Posterior cruciate ligament retention in total knee arthroplasty. In: Scott WN. , ed. Insall & Scott Surgery of the Knee, 5 ed. London, England: Churchill Livingstone; 2012: 1125-1131
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bercik MJ, Joshi A, Parvizi J. Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (03) 439-444
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kolisek FR, McGrath MS, Marker DR. , et al. Posterior-stabilized versus posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Iowa Orthop J 2009; 29: 23-27
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. , et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62 (10) e1-e34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Akasaki Y, Matsuda S, Miura H. , et al. Total knee arthroplasty following failed high tibial osteotomy: mid-term comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized prosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (07) 795-799
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Ang CL, Fook S, Chia SL, Chin PL, Lo NN, Yeo SJ. Unconstrained arthroplasty in type II valgus knees: posterior stabilized or cruciate retaining?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (03) 666-673
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bin Abd Razak HR, Pang HN, Yeo SJ, Tan MH, Lo NN, Chong HC. Joint line changes in cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized computer-navigated total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133 (06) 853-859
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Catani F, Leardini A, Ensini A. , et al. The stability of the cemented tibial component of total knee arthroplasty: posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized design. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (06) 775-782
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Cates HE, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Schmidt MA, Anderle M. In vivo comparison of knee kinematics for subjects having either a posterior stabilized or cruciate retaining high-flexion total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (07) 1057-1067
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Chaudhary R, Beaupré LA, Johnston DW. Knee range of motion during the first two years after use of posterior cruciate-stabilizing or posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses. A randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (12) 2579-2586
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Clark CR, Rorabeck CH, MacDonald S, MacDonald D, Swafford J, Cleland D. Posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining total knee replacement: a randomized study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 208-212
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Conditt MA, Noble PC, Bertolusso R, Woody J, Parsley BS. The PCL significantly affects the functional outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (07) (Suppl. 02) 107-112
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Carvalho Jr LH, Temponi EF, Soares LFM, Gonçalves MJ. Relationship between range of motion and femoral rollback in total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2014; 48 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Fantozzi S, Catani F, Ensini A, Leardini A, Giannini S. Femoral rollback of cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee replacements: in vivo fluoroscopic analysis during activities of daily living. J Orthop Res 2006; 24 (12) 2222-2229
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Hamai S, Okazaki K, Shimoto T, Nakahara H, Higaki H, Iwamoto Y. Continuous sagittal radiological evaluation of stair-climbing in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties using image-matching techniques. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (05) 864-869
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Han CW, Yang IH, Lee WS, Park KK, Han CD. Evaluation of postoperative range of motion and functional outcomes after cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized high-flexion total knee arthroplasty. Yonsei Med J 2012; 53 (04) 794-800
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kim YH, Choi Y, Kwon OR, Kim JS. Functional outcome and range of motion of high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining and high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (04) 753-760
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Lee SM, Seong SC, Lee S, Choi WC, Lee MC. Outcomes of the different types of total knee arthroplasty with the identical femoral geometry. Knee Surg Relat Res 2012; 24 (04) 214-220
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Li N, Tan Y, Deng Y, Chen L. Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (03) 556-564
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Liu HG, Zhu W, Zhang ZX. Comparison of outcomes after bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty using posterior-substituting versus cruciate-retaining prostheses. Saudi Med J 2015; 36 (02) 190-195
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Lützner J, Firmbach FP, Lützner C, Dexel J, Kirschner S. Similar stability and range of motion between cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting ultracongruent insert total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (06) 1638-1643
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Kubo S, Matsushita T, Kurosaka M, Kuroda R. Intraoperative soft tissue balance reflects minimum 5-year midterm outcomes in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (09) 1723-1730
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Misra AN, Hussain MR, Fiddian NJ, Newton G. The role of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85 (03) 389-392
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Peters CL, Mulkey P, Erickson J, Anderson MB, Pelt CE. Comparison of total knee arthroplasty with highly congruent anterior-stabilized bearings versus a cruciate-retaining design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 175-180
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Sando T, McCalden RW, Bourne RB, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE. Ten-year results comparing posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (02) 210-215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Seon J-K, Park J-K, Shin Y-J, Seo H-Y, Lee K-B, Song E-K. Comparisons of kinematics and range of motion in high-flexion total knee arthroplasty: cruciate retaining vs. substituting designs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (12) 2016-2022
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Snider MG, Macdonald SJ. The influence of the posterior cruciate ligament and component design on joint line position after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (07) 1093-1098
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Tanzer M, Smith K, Burnett S. Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: balancing the gap. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (07) 813-819
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Thomsen MG, Husted H, Otte KS, Holm G, Troelsen A. Do patients care about higher flexion in total knee arthroplasty? A randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14 (01) 127
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Tsuneizumi Y, Suzuki M, Miyagi J. , et al. Evaluation of joint laxity against distal traction force upon flexion in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci 2008; 13 (06) 504-509
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 43 van den Boom LG, Halbertsma JP, van Raaij JJ, Brouwer RW, Bulstra SK, van den Akker-Scheek I. No difference in gait between posterior cruciate retention and the posterior stabilized design after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (12) 3135-3141
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Wang CJ, Wang JW, Chen HS. Comparing cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty and cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective clinical study. Chang Gung Med J 2004; 27 (08) 578-585
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Yagishita K, Muneta T, Ju Y-J, Morito T, Yamazaki J, Sekiya I. High-flex posterior cruciate-retaining vs posterior cruciate-substituting designs in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (03) 368-374
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Yoshiya S, Matsui N, Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz M, Kurosaka M. In vivo kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasties under passive and weight-bearing conditions. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (06) 777-783
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Nguyen LC, Lehil MS, Bozic KJ. Trends in total knee arthroplasty implant utilization. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (05) 739-742
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Cankaya D, Ozkurt B, Aydin C, Tabak AY. No difference in blood loss between posterior-cruciate-ligament-retaining and posterior-cruciate-ligament-stabilized total knee arthroplasties. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22 (08) 1865-1869
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Mähringer-Kunz A, Efe T, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Schüttler KF, Paletta JR, Heyse TJ. Bleeding in TKA: posterior stabilized vs. cruciate retaining. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015; 135 (06) 867-870
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar