Keywords
Knee degeneration, posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty.
Abstract
Objective: Describing clinical outcomes of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty for treatment knee degeneration.Subjects and methods: Studied prospectively 50 patients (50 knee replacements, including 31 women and 19 men) were diagnosed and operated at Vieduc University Hospital. Mean follow up 10 ± 3 months, from 1/2024 to 5/2025.Results: Painless rate is 94%. Knee mechanical axis rate is 2,2º ± 0,9º. The result according to KSS was 82% in excellent, 18% in good. The result according to KSS was 84% in excellent, 16% in good. The complication post-operation was not found.Conclusion: Posterior cruciate ligament-retaining total knee arthroplasty has excellent funtional outcomes with no complication in patients with knee degeneration grade III-IV.
References
[1]
Yang K, Sohn G, Sambandam S. Cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: current concepts review. Cureus, 2023, 15 (8): e43813. doi: 10.7759/cureus.43813
Google Scholar
[2]
Victor J, Banks S, Bellemans J. Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -substituting total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised outcome study. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume, 2005, 87-B (5): 646-655. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B5.15602
Google Scholar
[3]
Laoruengthana A, Reosanguanwong K, Rattanaprichavej P, Sahasoonthorn K, Santisathaporn N, Pongpirul K. Cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in medial compartmental osteoarthritis: a propensity score-matched analysis of early postoperative recovery. Orthop Res Rev, 2024, 16: 103-110. doi: 10.2147/ORR.S444547
Google Scholar
[4]
Sando T, McCalden R.W, Bourne R.B, MacDonald S.J, Somerville L.E. Ten-year results comparing posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2015, 30 (2): 210-215. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.009
Google Scholar
[5]
Kadoya Y, Kobayashi A, Komatsu T, Nakagawa S, Yamano Y. Effects of posterior cruciate ligament resection on the tibiofemoral joint gap. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 2001, 391: 210-7. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200110000-00023.
Google Scholar
[6]
Migliorini F, Eschweiler J, Tingart M, Rath B. Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retained implants for total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical trials. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2019, 29 (4): 937-946. doi: 10.1007/s00590-019-02370-1
Google Scholar
[7]
Mai Đức Thuận, Nguyễn Tiến Thành, Nguyễn Quốc Dũng. Kết quả phẫu thuật thay khớp gối toàn phần bảo tồn dây chằng chéo sau. Tạp chí Y Dược lâm sàng 108, 2021, 16 (5): 98-106. doi: 10.52389/ydls.v16i5.815
Google Scholar
[8]
Vũ Trường Thịnh, Nguyễn Xuân Thùy. Đánh giá kết quả thay khớp gối toàn phần bảo tồn dây chằng chéo sau. Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam, 2022, 516 (1): 194-197. doi: 10.51298/vmj.v516i1.2983
Google Scholar
[9]
LeDuc R.C, Upadhyay D, Brown N.M. Cruciate-retaining versus cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Indian J Orthop, 2023, 57 (8): 1188-1195. doi: 10.1007/s43465-023-00914-6
Google Scholar
[10]
Rajgopal A, Kumar S, Aggarwal K. Evaluating long term outcomes and survivorship of cruciate retaining and sacrificing knee replacements done for degenerative arthritis in patients under 55 years. JOIO, 2021, 55 (5): 1180-1185. doi: 10.1007/s43465-021-00460-z
Google Scholar
[11]
Yoshiya S, Matsui N, Komistek R.D, Dennis D.A, Mahfouz M, Kurosaka M. In vivo kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasties under passive and weight-bearing conditions. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2005, 20 (6): 777-783. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2004.11.012
Google Scholar
[12]
Longo U.G, Ciuffreda M, Mannering N et al. Outcomes of posterior-stabilized compared with cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg, 2018, 31 (4): 321-340. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603902
Google Scholar