Asian Journal of Orthopaedic Research

Comparison of Cruciate-Sacrificing vs Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Replacement: A Retrospective Study

Nagesh Sherikar

Department of Orthopedics, MVJ Medical College, Bangalore, India.

Souradeep Mitra

Department of Orthopedics, MVJ Medical College, Bangalore, India.

M. Anirudha

BGS Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, India.

H. Y. Rakshith Chakravarthy *

Department of Orthopedics, MVJ Medical College, Bangalore, India.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

---

Abstract

Introduction: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a common surgical procedure in modern orthopaedics. There are two most commonly used implants in TKR: posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-retaining or the Cruciate Retaining (CR) knees and posterior stabilized (PS) knees in which the Posterior Cruciate Ligament is not retained, and a mechanism in the implant stabilizes the knee. In this study we try and compare the clinical outcomes of CR and PS knees by following up patients who have undergone TKR.

Materials and Methods: In this study we have retrospectively reviewed patients who have undergone CR or PS TKR at a single tertiary care center in southern India. Patients were called at one year post surgery for the assessment, and were assessed primarily using the Knee Society Score (KSS).

Results: A total of 200 patients were included in the study. There were 100 patients in the CR group and 100 patients in the PS group. The mean KSS at 1 year was 90 in the CR group and 85 in the PS group.

Conclusion: This study found that there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between CR and PS knees at 2 years of follow-up. These findings suggest that either type of knee replacement can be a safe and effective option for patients who are considering TKR.

Limitations: This study was limited by its retrospective design. Additionally, the study was conducted at a single academic medical center, and the results may not be generalizable to all patients who undergo TKR.

Keywords: CR knee, PS knee, retrospective study, KSS score

---

---

---

References

Song SJ, Park CH, Bae DK, What to know for selecting cruciate-retaining or posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery. 2019;11(2):142–150.

Guo EW, Sayeed Z, Padela MT, Qazi M, Zekaj M, Schaefer P, Darwiche HF, Improving total joint replacement with continuous quality improvement methods and tools. Orthopedic Clinics of North America. 2018;49(4):397–403.

Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Posterior cruciate ligament-retaining, posterior stabilized, and varus/valgus posterior stabilized constrained articulations in total knee arthroplasty. Instructional Course Lectures. 2006;55:419–427.

Bae DK, Song SJ, Kim KI, Hur D, Lee HH, Intraoperative factors affecting conversion from cruciate retaining to cruciate substituting in total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2016;24(10):3247–3253.

Ritter MA, Davis KE, Farris A, Keating EM, Faris PM, The surgeon’s role in relative success of PCL-retaining and PCL substituting total knee arthroplasty. HSS Journal. 2014;10(2):107–115.

Rodriguez JA, Bhende H, Ranawat CS, Total condylar knee replacement: A 20-year followup study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2001;388:10–17.

Kanna R, Murali SM, Ramanathan AT, Pereira L, Yadav CS, Anand S, Cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty has a better 10-year survival than posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics. 2023;10(1):19.

Kim GW, Jin Q H, Lim JH, Song EK, Seon JK, No difference of survival between cruciate retaining and substitution designs in high flexion total knee arthroplasty. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):6537.

Singleton N, Nicholas B, Gormack N, Stokes A, Differences in outcome after cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong Kong). 2019; 27(2):2309499019848154.

Seon JK, Park JK, Shin YJ, Seo HY, Lee KB, Song EK, Comparisons of kinematics and range of motion in high-flexion total knee arthroplasty: Cruciate retaining vs. substituting designs. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2011;19(12): 2016–2022.

Kim YHMD, Choi, Yoowang MD, Kim JSMD, Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses: A prospective randomized study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 2009; 91(8):1874–1881.

Catani F, Leardini A, Ensini A, Cucca G, Bragonzoni L, Toksvig-Larsen S, Giannini S. The stability of the cemented tibial component of total knee arthroplasty: Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized design. Journal of Arthroplasty. 2004;19(6):775–782.

Mayne A, Harshavardhan HP, Johnston LR, Wang W, Jariwala A. Cruciate retaining compared with posterior stabilised nexgen total knee arthroplasty: Results at 10 years in a matched cohort. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2017;99(8):602–606.