IMPLANT FIXATION IN CRUCIATE-RETAINING COMPARED WITH POSTERIOR-STABILISED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: SEVEN-YEAR FOLLOW-UP OF A RANDOMISED RSA TRIAL

Whether it is best to retain the posterior cruciate ligament in the degenerated knee, i.e. using a cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee prosthesis (TKP), or to use a more constraint posterior-stabilized (PS) TKP is of debate. There are limited studies comparing the effect of both methods on implant fixation and clinical outcome, leaving it up to the surgeon to base this decision on anything but conclusive evidence. We assessed the effect of two different philosophies in knee arthroplasty on clinical outcome and tibial component migration measured with radiostereometric analysis (RSA), by directly comparing the CR and PS version of an otherwise similarly designed cemented TKP. Sixty patients were randomized and received a Triathlon TKP (Stryker, NJ, USA) of either CR (n=30) or PS (n=30) design. RSA measurements (primary outcome) and clinical scores including the Knee Society Score and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score were evaluated at baseline, at three months postoperatively and at one, two, five and seven years. A linear mixed-effects model was used to analyse the repeated measurements. Both groups showed a similar implant migration pattern, with a maximum total point motion at seven years follow-up of around 0.8 mm of migration (mean difference between groups 95% CI −0.11 to 0.15mm, p=0.842). Two components (one of each group) were considered to have an increased risk of aseptic loosening. Both groups improved equally after surgery on the KSS and KOOS scores and no differences were seen during the seven years of follow-up. No differences in implant migration nor clinical results were seen seven years after cruciate-retaining compared to posterior-stabilized total knee prostheses.