Published in:
01-11-2017 | Knee
No difference in range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 11/2017
Login to get accessAbstract
Purpose
The use of an ultracongruent (UC) insert with a standard femoral component for substitution of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is a bone-preserving and therefore interesting alternative to the established box and cam mechanism of posterior stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study investigated range of motion (ROM), stability and patient-reported outcome (PRO) in UC and PS TKA. We hypothesized better knee flexion with the PS design but no difference in stability and PRO between UC and PS TKA.
Methods
A randomized controlled study was performed. One hundred and twenty-seven patients were included, 63 with an UC and 64 with a PS TKA (Columbus, Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany). Intraoperative stability and range of motion was measured with the use of a navigation system. Patients were assessed before surgery, 3 months and 1 year postoperatively.
Results
There was no difference in ROM between both groups, neither intraoperatively nor at follow-up. There was 5 mm less sagittal translation at 90° of knee flexion (p < 0.001) and more posterior femoral rollback during knee flexion in the PS TKA. Axial rotation between extension and knee flexion was reduced by both designs. UC TKA was 7 min faster (p = 0.001). At the one-year follow-up, the Knee Society Score was similar in both groups, the Oxford Knee Score demonstrated better results in the UC TKA group (p = 0.048).
Conclusion
Increased intraoperative sagittal translation and reduced posterior femoral rollback during knee flexion of UC TKA seem to have no negative influence on short-term clinical outcome. Therefore, UC TKA seems to be a practical alternative to the established PS TKA for substitution of the PCL. This might be especially interesting for surgeons who do not always substitute the PCL.
Level of evidence
I.