We performed a prospective, randomised trial of 44 patients to compare the functional outcomes of a posterior-cruciate-ligament-retaining and posterior-cruciate-ligament-substituting total knee arthroplasty, and to gain a better understanding of the in vivo kinematic behaviour of both devices.

At follow-up at five years, no statistically significant differences were found in the clinical outcome measurements for either design. The prevalence of radiolucent lines and the survivorship were the same. In a subgroup of 15 knees, additional image-intensifier analysis in the horizontal and sagittal planes was performed during step-up and lunge activity. Our analysis revealed striking differences. Lunge activity showed a mean posterior displacement of both medial and lateral tibiofemoral contact areas (roll-back) which was greater and more consistent in the cruciate-substituting than in the cruciate-retaining group (medial p < 0.0001, lateral p = 0.011). The amount of posterior displacement could predict the maximum flexion which could be achieved (p = 0.018). Forward displacement of the tibiofemoral contact area in flexion during stair activity was seen more in the cruciate-retaining than in the cruciate-substituting group. This was attributed mainly to insufficiency of the posterior cruciate ligament and partially to that of the anterior cruciate ligament. We concluded that, despite similar clinical outcomes, there are significant kinematic differences between cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting arthroplasties.

Although the importance of sound statistical principles in the design and analysis of data has gained prominence in recent years, biostatistics, the application of statistics to the analysis of biological and medical data, is still a subject which is poorly understood and often mishandled. This review introduces, in the context of orthopaedic research, the terminology and the principles involved in simple data analysis, and outlines areas of medical statistics that have gained prominence in recent years. It also lists and provides an insight into some of the more common errors that occur in published orthopaedic journals and which are frequently encountered at the review stage in papers submitted to the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.