Debate has raged over whether a cruciate retaining (CR) or a posterior stabilised (PS) total knee replacement (TKR) provides a better range of movement (ROM) for patients. Various sub-sets of CR design are frequently lumped together when comparing outcomes. Additionally, multiple factors have been proven to influence the rate of manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA) following TKR. The purpose of this study was to determine whether different CR bearing insert designs provide better ROM or different MUA rates. All primary TKRs performed by two surgeons between March 2006 and March 2009 were reviewed and 2449 CR-TKRs were identified. The same CR femoral component, instrumentation, and tibial base plate were consistently used. In 1334 TKRs a CR tibial insert with 3° posterior slope and no posterior lip was used (CR-S). In 803 there was an insert with no slope and a small posterior lip (CR-L) and in 312 knees the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was either resected or lax and a deep-dish, anterior stabilised insert was used (CR-AS). More CR-AS inserts were used in patients with less pre-operative ROM and greater pre-operative tibiofemoral deformity and flexion contracture (p < 0.05). The mean improvement in ROM was highest for the CR-AS inserts (5.9° (-40° to 55°) vs CR-S 3.1° (-45° to 70°) vs CR-L 3.0° (-45° to 65°); p = 0.004). There was a significantly higher MUA rate with the CR-S and CR-L inserts than CR-AS (Pearson rank 6.51; p = 0.04). Despite sacrificing or not substituting for the PCL, ROM improvement was highest, and the MUA rate was lowest in TKRs with a deep-dish, anterior-stabilised insert. Substitution for the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in the form of a PS design may not be necessary even when the PCL is deficient.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:129–32.

The February 2015 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Intra-operative sensors for knee balance; Mobile bearing no advantage; Death and knee replacement: a falling phenomenon; The swings and roundabouts of unicompartmental arthroplasty; Regulation, implants and innovation; The weight of arthroplasty responsibility!; BMI in arthroplasty