Abstract
Two knee arthroplasty implants with very different design principles were previously available in our region. Kinemax is PCL retaining with a fixed bearing and cemented components. LCS is PCL sacrificing, fully uncemented and incorporates a rotating bearing. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of these two radically different knee designs.
Between 1994 and 2004, 300 consecutive patients were recruited and underwent a knee replacement performed by the senior author. Each patient was randomised via sealed envelopes to receive either LCS or Kinemax implants. All patients were followed up by an audit nurse and patient satisfaction and Knee Society Scores (KSSs) were recorded.
By 2012, 135 patients had complete data at a minimum of 10-years of follow-up. The remaining 165 had either died before 10-year review or had not reached the 10-year mark. No patient was lost to follow-up. There were 69 patients in the Kinemax group and 68 in the LCS group. The pre-operative demographics were not significantly different between the two groups.
At 10-years of follow-up, each implant design demonstrated significant improvements in the KSS (p=0.001 kinemax, p=0.001 LCS) over pre-operative values. No significant difference could be identified between the two designs at 10 years. There were only two revisions in the whole study population and both were for kinemax implants at less than five years post-operatively.
In conclusion, there was no statistically significant difference in outcome between the two radically different knee designs at ten years with both designs performing equally well.
