Abstract
Introduction: Much debate exists regarding sparing or sacrificing the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). The posterior cruciate ligament is said to maintain proprioception and stabilization post knee arthroplasty. Substitution of the PCL can require more femoral bone resection, but is thought to improve range of motion. Release of the PCL can restore extension and enhance flexion through greater femoral rollback. Bicruciate implants potentially offer greater flexion and enhanced stability. Each implant design with mechanical instruments requires a different surgical technique making it difficult to directly compare the patient and surgical outcomes. Computer navigation eliminates the differences in implantation between the various implant designs and theoretically allows a more direct comparison of implants based on design characteristics and not surgical technique. The purpose of this paper is to review four different implant designs implanted by a single surgeon with a computer assisted, gap balancing technique to determine if there was any difference in patient outcome.
Methods: A total of 504 implants consisting of posterior cruciate sparing (PFC-RP), PCL substituting (PFC-RPC), PCL sacrificing (LCS) and bicruciate (Journey) implants performed by a single surgeon were reviewed. The PFC-RP group (260) was the largest, followed by the LCS (124), the PFC-RPF (80) and the Journey Knee (40). Outcomes reviewed were range of motion, function, pain and radiographic data to include alignment and evidence of radiolucency.
Results: Demographic data of groups compared included 175 men and 329 women. Mean ages ranged from 61 to 74 years. Preoperative scores among all groups were similar with the cruciate substituting group slightly lower in function, flexion and with more pain before surgery. Overall function improved across all groups through two years, with better scores in the Journey and LCS implants (77 and 73 points) versus RPF (47) and PFC retaining group at (68) at one year (A perfect score is 100). Flexion values were comparable between all groups at one and two year intervals with Journey the highest mean flexion (116 degrees) at one year and with the PFC-RP offering the highest mean flexion at the two year mark (115 degrees). The RPF group at the one year mark had more pain overall (28) versus the other three groups (Journey 45, LCS 42, Sigma RP 45). No patients in any group were revised for instability. Other surgical complications were equal in each group.
Discussion: While the PCL substituting knee patients (PFC-RPF) had lower pain, function and flexion at 12 months compared to all other groups, they started with lower overall knee scores. After accounting for the differences in patients preoperatively, no difference could be found between implant designs when implanted with a similar surgical technique employing a computer assisted gap balancing protocol.
Correspondence should be addressed to Diane Przepiorski at ISTA, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. Phone: +1 916-454-9884; Fax: +1 916-454-9882; E-mail: ista@pacbell.net
References:
1 Pereira, D. S., Jaffe, F. F. & Ortiguera, C. (1998). Posterior cruciate ligament-sparing versus posterior cruciate ligament-sacrificing arthroplasty. Functional results using the same prosthesis. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 13, 2, 138–144. Google Scholar
2 Straw, R., Kulkarni, S., Attfield, S. & Wilton, T. J. (2003). Posterior cruciate ligament at total knee replacement: Essential, beneficial or a hindrance? The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Br, 85B, 5, 671–674. Google Scholar
