Journal of AdvancedMedical and Dental Sciences Research

Introduction: Cruciate-retaining implants with cement less fixation were developed in the 1990s and refined to enable bone integration, some using hydroxyapatite coating. Mobile- bearing prostheses were created to maximize articular conformity throughout flexion. A perceived advantage was the potential for rotational self-alignment of femoral and tibial components, and reduced wear.Today, the selection of a TKR is from a variety of modular surface arthroplasties. Material & Methods: Sixty-four consecutive patients underwent total knee arthroplasty utilizing a posterior-stabilized prosthesis, and another group of sixty consecutive patients received a cruciate-retaining implant. All patients who had osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis and who were indicated for a total knee arthroplasty were invited to take part in a prospective study to follow their outcomes. Results & Conclusions: At a mean follow-up time of 60 months, the clinical scores of the two groups were similar, but the cruciate-retaining group had a higher mean range of motion. The mean Knee Society knee scores of the cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized groups were 85 points and 80 points, respectively (p=0.920).The implants used in the current study more closely represent the current philosophy of orthopaedic surgeons, who have a preference of one implant design over the other. Aside from retaining or substituting for the PCL, all knees were implanted with the identical surgical technique.
Keywords: Posterior Cruciate, Retaining Stabilized, Total Knee Arthroplasty

Corresponding author: Dr. Paras Motwani, Associate Professor, Department of anesthesia , Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Science, Bhuj, Gujarat

This article may be cited as:  Motwani P, Shihora U. Posterior Cruciate-Retaining Versus Posterior Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res 2015;3(6):S62-S65.