There is current debate concerning the most biomechanically advantageous knee implant systems, and there is also currently great interest in improving patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty. Additionally, there is no consensus whether a posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee device is superior to a more congruent, cruciate-substituting, medially-stabilized device (MS). This study compared the clinical outcomes of two such devices. The primary hypothesis was that the clinical outcomes, and specifically the patient satisfaction as measured by the Forgotten Joint Score, would be better in the MS group. This prospective, randomized, blinded Level 1 study compared the outcomes of 100 patients who received a Medacta GMK PS device and 101 patients who received a Medacta GMK medially-stabilized Sphere device (Medacta Intl., Lugano, Switzerland). All patients undergoing elective primary total knee arthroplasty were eligible for participation. Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent from participants were obtained. The devices were implanted using an anatomic alignment/calipered- measured resection surgical approach. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, 6 weeks, 6 months, and annually. Data were compared using T-test with a significance level of 0.05.Introduction
Methods
