Retrospective comparative study shows no significant difference in postural stability between cruciate-retaining (CR) and cruciate-substituting (PS) total knee implant systems.
- Resource Type
- journal article
- Authors
- Götz, Juergen; Beckmann, Johannes; Sperrer, Ingo; Baier, Clemens; Dullien, Silvia; Grifka, Joachim; Koeck, Franz; Götz, Juergen
- Source
- International Orthopaedics. Jul2016, Vol. 40 Issue 7, p1441-1446. 6p.
- Subject
- *ARTHROPLASTY
*PLASTIC surgery
*TOTAL hip replacement
*ARTIFICIAL joints
*ARTIFICIAL bones
*SURGEONS
*KNEE surgery
*POSTERIOR cruciate ligament surgery
*COMPARATIVE studies
*POSTURAL balance
*RESEARCH methodology
*MEDICAL cooperation
*RESEARCH
*TOTAL knee replacement
*EVALUATION research
*RETROSPECTIVE studies
- Language
- ISSN
- 0341-2695
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]