NYMC Faculty Publications
Cruciate-Retaining vs Posterior-Substituting Inserts in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Functional Outcome Comparison
Author Type(s)
Faculty
DOI
10.1016/j.arth.2012.05.010
Journal Title
The Journal of Arthroplasty
First Page
234
Last Page
242
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2-1-2013
Department
Orthopedic Surgery
Keywords
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee, Female, Humans, Knee Joint, Knee Prosthesis, Male, Middle Aged, Osteoarthritis, Knee, Prosthesis Design, Recovery of Function, Treatment Outcome
Disciplines
Medicine and Health Sciences | Orthopedics | Surgery
Abstract
Despite clinical success, it is unclear which one, posterior-substituting (PS) or cruciate-retaining (CR) insert, has superior functional outcomes or longevity. We compared the collected results from 2 institutional review board-approved, multicenter, prospective observational studies following CR (412) and PS inserts (328). Participants were evaluated preoperatively, at 6 weeks, at 3 months, and at 1 and 2 years regarding pain, motion, function (Knee Society Score, Krackow Activity Score, Short Form-36), and procedure variables such as anesthesia and preoperative/perioperative/postoperative complications. Implant longevity was recorded at the 2-year follow-up. Improvement was observed within each group; however, there was no difference between groups in terms of pain, motion, or function at any end point. Two-year survival rate was higher than 95%. A higher incidence of wound hematoma was observed in the PS group. Both inserts can be used expecting satisfactory outcomes and high survival rates at 2 years.
Recommended Citation
Lozano-Calderón, S., Shen, J., Doumato, D., Greene, D., & Zelicof, S. (2013). Cruciate-Retaining vs Posterior-Substituting Inserts in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Functional Outcome Comparison. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 28 (2), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.05.010
