Comparison of Functional Outcomes, Femoral Rollback and Sagittal Stability of Anterior-Stabilized Versus Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Overview

Journal Indian J Orthop

Publisher Springer Nature

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2021 Nov 26

PMID 34824707

Citations 1

Authors

Balgovind S Raja

Aditya K S Gowda

Sajid Ansari

Arghya Kundu Choudhury

Roop Bhushan Kalia

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has improved leaps and bounds in terms of design to improve clinical outcomes and achieve better rehabilitation of the patients. Ultra-congruent inserts (UC) were designed to replace the need for posterior stabilized (PS) implants. The purpose of this review was to evaluate clinical outcomes, femoral rollback, functional scores, range of motion, sagittal laxity, complication rates, and isokinetic performance between UC and PS TKA among RCTs.

Methods: Electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, opengrey, and Cochrane were searched from date of inception up to mid-April 2021, and meta-analysis was performed following PRISMA guidelines. This study analyzed outcomes, femoral rollback, tibial sagittal laxity and isokinetic performance.

Results: Ten RCTs identified 852 knees, of which 420 underwent UC TKAs and 432 underwent PS TKA. Compared to UC TKA, a significantly better sagittal stability ( = 0.17) and femoral rollback ( < 0.00001) in PS TKAs was noted, although no statistically significant difference was found in the assessment of the range of motion ( = 0.19) and functional scores. Both the groups had similar isokinetic performance with extensor torque ( = 0.97) and flexor torque ( = 0.37).

Conclusions: We conclude with the current meta-analysis that there are no added benefits for UC over PS inserts and these inserts have a higher sagittal laxity and less femoral roll back in cruciate sacrificing UC knee. But since there are no long-term wear data, UC inserts with CS technique should be used cautiously and may be used only when the PCL cannot be balanced adequately. There is no evidence or only a few to support the superiority of the AS TKA in terms of clinical outcomes or isokinetic performance or femoral external rotation over PS TKA.

Level Of Evidence: Level I, Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Citing Articles

Anterior knee pain and sit-up tests predicts patients' satisfaction and improvement in quality of life after anterior stabilized total knee replacement without patellar resurfacing.

Barahona M, Barrientos C, Alegria A, Barahona M, Navarro T, Hinzpeter J J Exp Orthop. 2023; 10(1):73.

PMID: 37493976 PMC: 10371966. DOI: 10.1186/s40634-023-00641-9.

References

Daniilidis K, Skwara A, Vieth V, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Heindel W, Stuckmann V . Highly conforming polyethylene inlays reduce the in vivo variability of knee joint kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2011; 19(4):260-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.04.001. View

Higgins J, Thompson S . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11):1539-58. DOI: 10.1002/sim.1186. View

Jang S, Kim M, Koh I, Sohn S, Kim C, In Y . Comparison of Anterior-Stabilized and Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Same Patients: A Prospective Randomized Study. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(8):1682-1689. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.062. View

Borque K, Gold J, Incavo S, Patel R, Ismaily S, Noble P . Anteroposterior Knee Stability During Stair Descent. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(6):1068-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.011. View

Puloski S, McCalden R, MacDonald S, Rorabeck C, Bourne R . Tibial post wear in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. An unrecognized source of polyethylene debris. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83(3):390-7. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200103000-00011. View

Rowe P, Myles C, Walker C, Nutton R . Knee joint kinematics in gait and other functional activities measured using flexible electrogoniometry: how much knee motion is sufficient for normal daily life?. Gait Posture. 2000; 12(2):143-55. DOI: 10.1016/s0966-6362(00)00060-6. View

Longo U, Ciuffreda M, Mannering N, DAndrea V, Locher J, Salvatore G . Outcomes of Posterior-Stabilized Compared with Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2017; 31(4):321-340. DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603902. View

Tanikawa H, Tada M, Harato K, Okuma K, Nagura T . Influence of Total Knee Arthroplasty on Patellar Kinematics and Patellofemoral Pressure. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 32(1):280-285. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.044. View

Uvehammer J, Karrholm J, Regner L, Carlsson L, Herberts P . Concave versus posterior-stabilized tibial joint surface in total knee arthroplasty: randomized evaluation of 47 knees. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(1):25-32. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.17939. View

10.

Scott D . Prospective Randomized Comparison of Posterior-Stabilized Versus Condylar-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: Final Report of a Five-Year Study. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 33(5):1384-1388. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.037. View

11.

Ranawat C, White P, West S, Ranawat A . Clinical and Radiographic Results of Attune and PFC Sigma Knee Designs at 2-Year Follow-Up: A Prospective Matched-Pair Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 32(2):431-436. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.021. View

12.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. PMC: 2707599. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. View

13.

Berend K, Lombardi Jr A, Adams J . Which total knee replacement implant should I pick? Correcting the pathology: the role of knee bearing designs. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(11 Suppl A):129-32. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32835. View

14.

Louisia S, Siebold R, Canty J, Bartlett R . Assessment of posterior stability in total knee replacement by stress radiographs: prospective comparison of two different types of mobile bearing implants. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2005; 13(6):476-82. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-004-0567-8. View

15.

Lutzner J, Beyer F, Dexel J, Fritzsche H, Lutzner C, Kirschner S . No difference in range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 25(11):3515-3521. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4331-7. View

16.

Stirling P, Clement N, MacDonald D, Patton J, Burnett R, Macpherson G . Early functional outcomes after condylar-stabilizing (deep-dish) versus standard bearing surface for cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2020; 31(1):3. PMC: 7219520. DOI: 10.1186/s43019-019-0001-7. View

17.

Cacciola G, Mancino F, De Meo F, Di Matteo V, Sculco P, Cavaliere P . Mid-term survivorship and clinical outcomes of the medial stabilized systems in primary total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. J Orthop. 2021; 24:157-164. PMC: 7933597. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2021.02.022. View

18.

Sur Y, Koh I, Park S, Kim H, In Y . Condylar-stabilizing tibial inserts do not restore anteroposterior stability after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 30(4):587-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.11.018. View

19.

Wautier D, Thienpont E . Changes in anteroposterior stability and proprioception after different types of knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 25(6):1792-1800. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4038-9. View

20.

Heyse T, Becher C, Kron N, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Schofer M . Patellofemoral pressure after TKA in vitro: highly conforming vs. posterior stabilized inlays. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009; 130(2):191-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-009-0920-y. View