No Difference in Recovery of Patient-Reported Outcome and Range of Motion between Cruciate Retaining and Posterior Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Both from the perspective of the individual and from a socioeconomic point of view (e.g., return to work), it is important to have an insight into the potential differences in recovery between posterior cruciate ligament retaining (PCR) and posterior stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implants. The primary aim of this study was to compare the speed of recovery of patient-reported outcome between patients with a PCR and PS TKA during the first postoperative year. The secondary aim was to compare the effect on range of motion (ROM). In a randomized, double-blind, controlled, single-center trial, 120 adults diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the knee were randomized into either the PCR or PS group. Primary outcome was speed of recovery of patient-reported pain and function, measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), with a follow-up of 1 year. Main secondary outcome measure was ROM. A generalized estimating equations (GEE) analysis was used to assess whether there was a difference over time between groups (“p-value for interaction”). Between 2008 and 2011, 59 participants received a PCR TKA (mean age, 70.3 years [SD = 7.7]; mean body mass index [BMI], 30.5 kg/m² [SD = 5.4]) and 55 participants a PS TKA (mean age, 73.5 years [SD = 7.0]; mean BMI, 29.2 kg/m² [SD = 4.4]). Six patients (two PCR and four PS) were excluded because of early drop-out, so 114 patients (95%) were available for analysis. In between group difference for total WOMAC score was −1.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: −5.6 to 3.1); p-value for interaction was 0.698. For ROM, in between group difference was 1.1 (95% CI: −2.6 to 4.7); p-value for interaction was 0.379. These results demonstrated that there are no differences in speed of recovery of WOMAC or ROM during the first postoperative year after PCR or PS TKA.

Keywords

knee arthroplasty - posterior cruciate ligament - posterior stabilized

• References

• 1 Cram P, Lu X, Kates SL, Singh JA, Li Y, Wolf BR. Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991-2010. JAMA 2012; 308 (12) 1227-1236
• 2 Sundberg M, Lidgren L, Dahl AW, Robertsson O. Swedish knee arthroplasty register: Annual report 2016. Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register; Lund, Sweden: 2016
• 3 Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P. What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open 2012; 2 (01) e000435
• 4 Nilsdotter AK, Toksvig-Larsen S, Roos EM. Knee arthroplasty: are patients' expectations fulfilled? A prospective study of pain and function in 102 patients with 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (01) 55-61
• 5 Tilbury C, Haanstra TM, Leichtenberg CS. et al. Unfulfilled expectations after total hip and knee arthroplasty surgery: there is a need for better preoperative patient information and education. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (10) 2139-2145
• 6 Lombardi Jr. AV, Mallory TH, Fada RA. et al. An algorithm for the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 75-87
• 7 Mihalko WM, Krackow KA. Posterior cruciate ligament effects on the flexion space in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (360) 243-250
• 8 Verra WC, van den Boom LG, Jacobs W, Clement DJ, Wymenga AA, Nelissen RG. Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 10 (10) CD004803
• 9 Jiang C, Liu Z, Wang Y, Bian Y, Feng B, Weng X. Posterior cruciate ligament retention versus posterior stabilization for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2016; 11 (01) e0147865
• 10 Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically-important patient-relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Orthop Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1833-1840
• 11 Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M. et al. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63 (01) 36-42
• 12 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
• 13 Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD. et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 Health Survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51 (11) 1055-1068
• 14 Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 45 (04) 384-391
• 15 Lennard GH, van den Boom L, Brouwer ReinoudW, Inge van den Akker-Scheek, Bulstra SjoerdK, Jos JAM van Raaij. Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009; 10: 119
• 16 Bisschop R, Brouwer RW, Van Raay JJ. Total knee arthroplasty in younger patients: a 13-year follow-up study. Orthopedics 2010; 33 (12) 876
• 17 Huizinga MR, Brouwer RW, Bisschop R, van der Veen HC, van den Akker-Scheek I, van Raay JJ. Long-term follow-up of anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty: a 15- to 20-year survival analysis. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (06) 1190-1195
• 18 Emerson Jr RH, Higgins LL, Head WC. The AGC total knee prosthesis at average 11 years. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15 (04) 418-423
• 19 Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Keating EM, Faris PM, Crites BM. Long-term followup of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388) 51-57
• 20 Harato K, Bourne RB, Victor J, Snyder M, Hart J, Ries MD. Midterm comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus -substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II prosthesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial. Knee 2008; 15 (03) 217-221
• 21 Kim YH, Choi Y, Kwon OR, Kim JS. Functional outcome and range of motion of high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining and high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (04) 753-760
• 22 Chaudhary R, Beaupré LA, Johnston DW. Knee range of motion during the first two years after use of posterior cruciate-stabilizing or posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses. A randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008; 90 (12) 2579-2586
• 23 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 Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (12) 2016-2022
• 24 Anouchi YS, McShane M, Kelly Jr F, Elting J, Stiehl J. Range of motion in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (331) 87-92
• 25 Pandit H, Ward T, Hollinghurst D. et al. Influence of surface geometry and the cam-post mechanism on the kinematics of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (07) 940-945