Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity


Creative Commons License

ÜNKAR E. A., ÖZTÜRKMEN Y., ŞÜKÜR E., ÇARKÇI E., MERT M.

Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, cilt.51, sa.2, ss.95-99, 2017 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus, TRDizin) identifier identifier identifier

Özet

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional results of posteriorcruciate ligament (PCL)e retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties in patients withsevere varus gonarthrosis.Methods: Medical records of 112 knees of 96 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty for severevarus ( 15) were reviewed. PCL-retaining and PCL-stabilizing groups consisted of 58 and 54 knees,respectively. Mean follow-up time was 56.6 months (range: 24e112 months). Knee Society (KS) clinicalrating system was used in clinical evaluation. Range of motion, degree offlexion contracture, postoperative alignment, and complication rates were compared between the groups.Results: Mean preoperative mechanical tibiofemoral angle was 20.1in varus alignment, and wasrestored to 4.6in valgus postoperatively. No statistically signiŞcant differences were found betweenPCL-stabilizing and PCL-retaining groups when KS knee scores, function scores, andflexion arc wereevaluated. Two patients in PCL-retaining group underwent revision surgery due to aseptic loosening oftibial component. One patient in PCL-stabilizing group needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunksyndrome.Conclusion: There were no notable differences between the 2 groups and PCL-retaining design hadoutcomes as good as PCL-stabilizing total knee implant in osteoarthritic knees with severe varusdeformity.Level of evidence: Level III, Therapeutic study.© 2016 Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This isan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).