medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2021, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2021; 35 (1)

Functional assessment in total knee arthroplasty comparing the posterior cruciate ligament preservation versus postero-stabilization

Chico-Carpizo F, Domínguez-Gasca L, Orozco-Villaseñor S

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 69-74
PDF size: 169.34 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The two most commonly used types of prostheses are the total knee prosthesis with posterior cruciate ligament preservation and posterior cruciate ligament replacement. Objective: To assess whether there is a difference in functionality between the two procedures. Material and methods: Observational, retrospective and cross-sectional study with 134 patients divided into group A (N = 67) with ligament preservation and group B (N = 67) with posterior substituting. Using the American Association Scale for Knee Prosthetics with Insall modification to assess functionality. Statistical analysis: use of χ2 with Yates correction. Results: In group A the results: excellent (31%); good (24%); regular (22%) bad (22%). In group B the results: excellent (34%); good (31%); regular (16%) and bad (19%); without statistical difference between the two groups. Conclusions: No statistically significant difference was observed between age, gender, laterality of injury, or between number of patients with excellent results, good regular and bad according to the scale used. The high percentage of poor results in both groups of this series for the knee prosthesis is striking.


REFERENCES

  1. Guía de Práctica Clínica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. IMSS-726-14. Prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento de rehabilitación en el paciente adulto con osteoartrosis de rodilla en los tres niveles de atención. México: Secretaría de Salud; 2014.

  2. Espinosa MR, Arce SCA, Cajigas MJC, Esquivel VJA, Gutiérrez GJJ, Martínez HJL, et al. Reunión multidisciplinaria de expertos en diagnóstico y tratamiento de pacientes con osteoartritis. Actualización basada en evidencias. Med Int Mex. 2013; 29(1): 67-92.

  3. Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the united states. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(17): 1386-97.

  4. Steiner C, Andrews R, Barrett M, Weiss A. HCUP projections: mobility/orthopedic procedures 2003 to 2012. 2012. HCUP Projections Report # 2012-03. 2012 Sep 20. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

  5. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(10): 2606-12.

  6. Tanzer M, Makhdom AM. Preoperative planning in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016; 24(4): 220-30.

  7. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; (248): 9-12.

  8. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; (248): 13-4.

  9. Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, Husted H, Troelsen A. Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2016; 87(3): 280-5.

  10. 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; 2013(10): CD004803.

  11. Verra WC, Boom LG, Jacobs WC, Schoones JW, Wymenga AB, Nelissen RG. Similar outcome after retention or sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2015; 86(2): 195-201.

  12. Longo UG, Ciuffreda M, Mannering N, D'Andrea V, Locher J, Salvatore G, et al. Outcomes of posterior-stabilized compared with cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2018; 31(4): 321-40. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603902.

  13. Kebbach M, Grawe R, Geier A, Winter E, Bergschmidt P, Kluess D, et al. Effect of surgical parameters on the biomechanical behaviour of bicondylar total knee endoprostheses - A robot-assisted test method based on a musculoskeletal model. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1): 14504. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-50399-3.

  14. Lombardi AV Jr, Mallory TH, Fada RA, Hartman JF, Capps SG, Kefauver CA, et al. An algorithm for the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; (392): 75-87.

  15. 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): 2016-22.



EVIDENCE LEVEL

IV




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com