Abstract
Introduction and Aims: The dilemma to retain or sacrifice the posterior cruciate ligament in a primary total knee arthroplasty continues to be an area of discussion. A randomised clinical trial was performed comparing clinical, radiographic and quality of life outcomes between patients receiving a posterior cruciate sparing versus posterior cruciate substituting knee implants.
Method: A multi-centred, prospective, randomised, blinded, clinical trial was performed to compare posterior cruciate retaining (CR) versus posterior cruciate substitution (PS) in osteoarthritic patients with an intact posterior cruciate ligament, undergoing total knee arthroplasty using the AMK® (Depuy®, Warsaw, Indiana) component. One hundred and fifty-two patients were randomised to receive one of the two devices. Patients were evaluated pre-operatively, at three, six, 12 months and annually thereafter. Patient demographics, radiographs, and multiple validated, outcome measures (WOMAC, SF-12, the Knee Society Clinical Rating System, and a stair climbing test) were evaluated. Patients and assessors were blinded to the implant design.
Results: One hundred and fifty-two patients were randomised at three centres; 72 in the CR group and 80 in the PS group. One patient was revised due to instability. Average follow-up was 5.14 years (range 2.97–6.99 years). There were no significant differences in baseline patient demographics between groups. There were no significant differences in outcome measures or radiographic findings. There were no significant differences in the Knee Society Clinical Rating System (CR- 159.18 versus PS- 156.49). There were no differences in knee extension at latest follow-up (CR- 1.02) and (PS- 1.10). There were no differences in knee flexion at latest follow-up (CR-111.00 ) and (PS- 113.61). No differences were noted in the WOMAC and SF-12 scores between the two groups.
Conclusion: In this prospective randomised clinical trial no significant differences involving radiographs and multiple outcome measures could be seen between a cruciate retaining versus a posterior stabilised total knee prostheses at a mean follow-up of 5.14 years. Long-term evaluation is necessary to comment on wear, osteolysis and implant longevity.
These abstracts were prepared by Editorial Secretary, George Sikorski. Correspondence should be addressed to Australian Orthopaedic Association, Ground Floor, The William Bland Centre, 229 Macquarie Street, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia.
At least one of the authors is receiving or has received material benefits or support from a commercial source.
