PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare three types of mobile-bearing posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-sacrificing TKA. The hypothesis was that the three designs provide differences in flexion stability and femoral rollback and improved clinical score at 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Three groups of patients, divided according to implant design, were analysed retrospectively. All operations were guided by a non-image-based navigation system that recorded relative femoral and tibial positions in native and implanted knees during: passive range of motion and anterior drawer test at 90° flexion. WOMAC, KSS and SF36 scores were collected pre-operatively and at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: There are no differences in kinematic or clinical performance of the three implants, except for the antero-posterior translation during stress test in flexion: only Cohort B had comparable pre- and post-operative laxity test values (p < 0.001). All three TKA designs allowed to maintain pre-operative tibial rotation pattern through all range of knee flexion. All clinical scores of the three patient cohorts were significantly improved post-operatively compared to the pre-operative values (p < 0.001). Moreover, we found no differences among post-operative results of the three designs. CONCLUSION: Despite design variations, mobile-bearing PCL-sacrificing TKA reproduces femoral rollback and screw-home with little or no difference in clinical or functional scores at a follow-up of 2 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Three different cruciate-sacrificing TKA designs: minor intraoperative kinematic differences and negligible clinical differences
ZAFFAGNINI, STEFANO;MARKO, TEDI;BRUNI, DANILO;NERI, MARIA PIA;MARCACCI, MAURILIO
2014
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare three types of mobile-bearing posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-sacrificing TKA. The hypothesis was that the three designs provide differences in flexion stability and femoral rollback and improved clinical score at 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Three groups of patients, divided according to implant design, were analysed retrospectively. All operations were guided by a non-image-based navigation system that recorded relative femoral and tibial positions in native and implanted knees during: passive range of motion and anterior drawer test at 90° flexion. WOMAC, KSS and SF36 scores were collected pre-operatively and at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: There are no differences in kinematic or clinical performance of the three implants, except for the antero-posterior translation during stress test in flexion: only Cohort B had comparable pre- and post-operative laxity test values (p < 0.001). All three TKA designs allowed to maintain pre-operative tibial rotation pattern through all range of knee flexion. All clinical scores of the three patient cohorts were significantly improved post-operatively compared to the pre-operative values (p < 0.001). Moreover, we found no differences among post-operative results of the three designs. CONCLUSION: Despite design variations, mobile-bearing PCL-sacrificing TKA reproduces femoral rollback and screw-home with little or no difference in clinical or functional scores at a follow-up of 2 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
