Three different cruciate-sacrificing TKA designs: minor intraoperative kinematic differences and negligible clinical differences

Simone Bignozzi, Stefano Zaffagnini, Ibrahim Akkawi, Tedi Marko, Danilo Bruni, Maria Pia Neri, Francesca Colle, Maurilio Marcacci

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

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 

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.

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3113-3120
Number of pages8
JournalKnee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Volume22
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 20 2014

Keywords

  • Antero-stabilized knee
  • Kinematics
  • Navigation
  • Postero-stabilized knee
  • Total knee arthroplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Three different cruciate-sacrificing TKA designs: minor intraoperative kinematic differences and negligible clinical differences'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this