Aims. This study compared patient-reported outcomes of three total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs from one manufacturer: one cruciate-retaining (CR) design, and two cruciate-sacrificing designs, anterior-stabilized (AS) and posterior-stabilized (PS). Methods. Patients scheduled for primary TKA were included in a single-centre, prospective, three-armed, blinded randomized trial (n = 216; 72 per group). After intraoperative confirmation of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) integrity, patients were randomly allocated to receive a CR, AS, or PS design from the same TKA system. Insertion of an AS or PS design required PCL resection. The primary outcome was the mean score of all five subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at two-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all KOOS subscales, Oxford Knee Score, EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire, EuroQol visual analogue scale, range of motion (ROM), and willingness to undergo the operation again. Patient satisfaction was also assessed. Results. Patients reported similar levels of pain, function, satisfaction, and general health regardless of the prosthetic design they received. Mean maximal flexion (129° (95% confidence interval (CI) 127° to 131°) was greater in the PS group than in the CR (120° (95% CI 121° to 124°)) and AS groups (122° (95% CI 120° to 124°)). Conclusion. Despite differences in design and constraint, CR, AS, and PS designs from a single TKA system resulted in no differences in patient-reported outcomes at two-year follow-up. PS patients had statistically better ROM, but the clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1271–1278

We identified 148 patients who had undergone a revision total knee replacement using a single implant system between 1990 and 2000. Of these 18 patients had died, six had developed a peri-prosthetic fracture and ten had incomplete records or radiographs. This left 114 with prospectively-collected radiographs and Bristol knee scores available for study. The height of the joint line before and after revision total knee replacement was measured and classified as either restored to within 5 mm of the pre-operative height or elevated if it was positioned more than 5 mm above the pre-operative height. The joint line was elevated in 41 knees (36%) and restored in 73 (64%). Revision surgery significantly improved the mean Bristol knee score from 41.1 (. sd. 15.9) pre-operatively to 80.5 (. sd. 15) post-operatively (p < 0.001). At one year post-operatively both the total Bristol knee score and its functional component were significantly better in the restored group than in the elevated group (p < 0.01). Overall, revision from a unicondylar knee replacement required less use of bone graft, fewer component augments, restored the joint line more often and gave a significantly better total Bristol knee score (p < 0.02) and functional score (p < 0.01) than revision from total knee replacement. Our findings show that restoration of the joint line at revision total knee replacement gives a significantly better result than leaving it unrestored by more than 5 mm. We recommend the greater use of distal femoral augments to help to achieve this goal