Abstract
Introduction
Mid-flexion stability is believed to be an important factor influencing successful clinical outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. The post of a posterior-stabilizing (PS) knee engages the cam in >60° of flexion, allowing for the possibility of paradoxical mid-flexion instability in less than 60° of flexion. Highly-conforming polyethylene insert designs were introduced as an alternative to PS knees. The cruciate-substituting (CS) knee was designed to provide anteroposterior stability throughout the full range of motion.
Methods
As part of a prospective, randomized, five-year clinical trial, we performed quantitative stress x-rays on a total of 65 subjects in two groups (CS and PS) who were more than five years postoperative with a well-functioning total knee. Antero-posterior stability of the knee was evaluated using stress radiographs in the lateral position. A 15 kg force was applied anteriorly and posteriorly with the knee in 45° and 90° of flexion. Measurements of anterior and posterior displacement were made by tracing lines along the posterior margin of the tibial component and the posterior edge of the femoral component, which were parallel to the posterior tibial cortex. (Figures 1–4)
Results
In both 45° and 90° of flexion, the PS group demonstrated significantly less total anterior/posterior displacement compared to the CS group, (45°: 7.33 mm vs 12.44 mm, p ≤ 0.0001, 90°: 3.54 mm vs. 9.74 mm, p ≤ 0.0001). (Figures 5,6) The only statistically significant outcomes score difference was seen with the KSS function score in the female subset, with the CS score lower (81.8) compared to the PS score (94.7). (Figure 7) All of the other scores, KSS pain/motion and KSS function scores, as well as the LEAS and FJS scores, were all similar statistically, as was the range of motion and the long axis x-ray alignment.
Discussion & Conclusion
The post and cam posterior-stabilized knee has traditionally been thought to be the best choice for providing stability for knee replacement with PCL-insufficiency or sacrifice. However, this difference in stability as measured with stress xrays did not correlate with any detectible differences in any of the clinical outcomes measurements collected (Knee Society Score, Forgotten Joint Score, Lower Extremity Activity Scale) or in the range of motion or coronal alignment, with the exception of the female subgroup KSS function score.
In summary, the CS knee demonstrates greater total antero-posterior laxity compared to the PS knee, as measured by stress radiographs, but there is not a strong correlation with clinical outcomes measurements. A greater number of subjects and/or a younger, higher demand population studied with this protocol might produce greater differences in the outcomes, especially in the FJS score.
For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
