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
BRUNI, DANILO;
2014-01-01
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.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Bignozzi2014_Article_ThreeDifferentCruciate-sacrifi.pdf
Solo gestori archivio
Descrizione: Articolo principale
Tipologia:
PDF editoriale
Dimensione
833 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
833 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.