Cruciate retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty after previous high tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23, 3607–3613 (2015) doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3259-z

Cruciate retaining versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty after previous high tibial osteotomy

Chen, J.Y., Lo, N.N., Chong, H.C. et al.
Knee

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after previous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) using cruciate retaining (CR) versus posterior stabilized (PS) prostheses.

 

Methods

Between 2001 and 2010, 133 patients who underwent TKA after previous HTO were included in this study and prospectively followed up for two years. Two independent assessors recorded the range of motion of the operated knee, anterior–posterior (AP) laxity, medial–lateral (ML) laxity, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS).

 

Results

Thirty-three patients received CR prostheses, while 100 patients received PS prostheses. The median (inter-quartile range) knee flexion at 6 months and 2 years post-TKA was 101° (90, 116) and 110° (90, 118), respectively for the CR group, compared to 115° (100, 121) and 118° (108, 125) for the PS group (p = 0.010 and p = 0.009, respectively). AP and ML laxities were comparable in both groups of patients. While both groups of patients showed improvement in OKS, KSFS and KSKS at 6 months and 2 years post-TKA, there was no significant difference in these clinical scores between the two groups at both time points of follow-up. None of the 133 patients required revision surgery.

 

Conclusions

Although PS prostheses offer better knee flexion in TKA after previous HTO, the knee stability, clinical scores and revision rate at 6 months and 2 years post-TKA are comparable between CR and PS prostheses. The authors conclude that CR is an alternative to PS prostheses in patients undergoing TKA after previous HTO.

 

Level of evidence

III.


Download article