Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Retrospective comparative study shows no significant difference in postural stability between cruciate-retaining (CR) and cruciate-substituting (PS) total knee implant systems

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Modified postural stability after retaining the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in total knee arthroplasty is still discussed controversially. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a PCL-retaining implant design should be preferred over a PCL-substituting implant design regarding postural stability in one-leg stance and clinical outcome.

Methods

Forty patients underwent total knee arthroplasty, 20 of them with a cruciate-retaining (CR) and 20 of them with a cruciate-substituting (PS) implant system. Postural stability was analysed 6 months postoperatively in one-leg stance using the Biodex Balance System. In addition, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Society Score were completed.

Results

This study shows that there is no significant difference in postural stability between CR and PS) implant systems with PS implants showing better results in WOMAC score.

Conclusions

In case it is necessary to use a PS implant, no negative influence on postural stability is to be expected compared to a CR implant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2015) FastStats – inpatient surgery http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/inpatient-surgery.htm. Accessed 8 Aug 2015

  2. Verra WC, van den Boom LG, Jacobs W, Clement DJ, Wymenga AA, Nelissen RG (2013) Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10:CD004803. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004803.pub3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hunt NC, Ghosh KM, Blain AP, Rushton SP, Longstaff LM, Deehan DJ (2015) No statistically significant kinematic difference found between a cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilised Triathlon knee arthroplasty: a laboratory study involving eight cadavers examining soft-tissue laxity. Bone Joint J 97-B(5):642–648. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B5.34999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Freeman MA, Pinskerova V (2005) The movement of the normal tibio-femoral joint. J Biomech 38(2):197–208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kapandji I (2006) Funktionelle Anatomie der Gelenke, vol 2, 4th edn. Thieme, Stuttgart, p 84

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bachmann M, Bolliger L, Ilchmann T, Clauss M (2014) Long-term survival and radiological results of the Duracon™ total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(4):747–752. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2154-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yue B, Varadarajan KM, Rubash HE, Li G (2012) In vivo function of posterior cruciate ligament before and after posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(7):1387–1392. doi:10.1007/s00264-011-1481-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB (2003) Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:37–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE Jr, Ranawat CS, Scott RD, Thornhill TS, Lapp MA (1998) In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 356:47–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Baier C, Fitz W, Craiovan B, Keshmiri A, Winkler S, Springorum R, Grifka J, Beckmann J (2014) Improved kinematics of total knee replacement following partially navigated modified gap-balancing technique. Int Orthop 38(2):243–249. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2140-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang K, Mihalko WM (2012) Posterior cruciate mechanoreceptors in osteoarthritic and cruciate-retaining TKA retrievals: a pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(7):1855–1859. doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2120-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Vandekerckhove PJ, Parys R, Tampere T, Linden P, Van den Daelen L, Verdonk PC (2015) Does cruciate retention primary total knee arthroplasty affect proprioception, strength and clinical outcome? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(6):1644–1652. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3384-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Swanik CB, Lephart SM, Rubash HE (2004) Proprioception, kinesthesia, and balance after total knee arthroplasty with cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A(2):328–334

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 248:13–14

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB, Kinemax Outcomes Group (2001) Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(12):1856–1864

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Woollacott MH, Tang PF (1997) Balance control during walking in the older adult: research and its implications. Phys Ther 77:646–660

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Arnold BL, Schmitz RJ (1998) Examination of balance measures produced by the biodex stability system. J Athl Train 33(4):323–327

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Finn JA, Alvarez MM, Jett RE, Axtell DS, Kemler DD (1999) Stability performance assessment among subjects of disparate balancing abilities. Med Sci Sports Exerc 31:S2529

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sando T, McCalden RW, Bourne RB, MacDonald SJ, Somerville LE (2015) Ten-year results comparing posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30(2):210–215. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Seon JK, Yim JH, Seo HY, Song EK (2013) No better flexion or function of high-flexion designs in Asian patients with TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(5):1498–1503. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2629-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Luo SX, Zhao JM, Su W, Li XF, Dong GF (2012) Posterior cruciate substituting versus posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty prostheses: a meta-analysis. Knee 19(4):246–252. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2011.12.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Barrett DS, Cobb AG, Bentley G (1991) Joint proprioception in normal, osteoarthritic and replaced knees. J Bone Joint Surg Br 73:53–56

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Warren PJ, Olanlokun TK, Cobb AG, Bentley G (1993) Proprioception after knee arthroplasty. The influence of prosthetic design. Clin Orthop 297:182–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Asklepios-Klinikum Bad Abbach, Orthopädische Klinik für die Universität Regensburg, Bad Abbach, Germany

    Juergen Götz, Ingo Sperrer, Clemens Baier, Silvia Dullien & Joachim Grifka

  2. Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Medical Centre University of Regensburg, Kaiser-Karl V.-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Germany

    Juergen Götz

  3. Sportklinik Stuttgart GmbH, Stuttgart, Germany

    Johannes Beckmann

  4. MedArtes, Neutraubling, Germany

    Franz Koeck

Authors
  1. Juergen Götz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johannes Beckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ingo Sperrer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Clemens Baier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Silvia Dullien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joachim Grifka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Franz Koeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juergen Götz.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

No conflict of interest exists. The other authors have no external sources of support. No company has had any role in the study design; the data collection, analysis, and interpretation; the manuscript preparation; or the manuscript submission.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Götz, J., Beckmann, J., Sperrer, I. et al. Retrospective comparative study shows no significant difference in postural stability between cruciate-retaining (CR) and cruciate-substituting (PS) total knee implant systems. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 40, 1441–1446 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3067-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3067-1

Key words

Search

Navigation