Cargando…

Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) – retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties in patients with severe varus gonarthrosis. METHODS: Medical records of 112 knees of 96 patients who underwent t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ünkar, Ethem Ayhan, Öztürkmen, Yusuf, Şükür, Erhan, Çarkçı, Engin, Mert, Murat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28108167
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.008
_version_ 1783364807094697984
author Ünkar, Ethem Ayhan
Öztürkmen, Yusuf
Şükür, Erhan
Çarkçı, Engin
Mert, Murat
author_facet Ünkar, Ethem Ayhan
Öztürkmen, Yusuf
Şükür, Erhan
Çarkçı, Engin
Mert, Murat
author_sort Ünkar, Ethem Ayhan
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) – retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties in patients with severe varus gonarthrosis. METHODS: Medical records of 112 knees of 96 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty for severe varus (≥15°) were reviewed. PCL-retaining and PCL-stabilizing groups consisted of 58 and 54 knees, respectively. Mean follow-up time was 56.6 months (range: 24–112 months). Knee Society (KS) clinical rating system was used in clinical evaluation. Range of motion, degree of flexion contracture, postoperative alignment, and complication rates were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Mean preoperative mechanical tibiofemoral angle was 20.1° in varus alignment, and was restored to 4.6° in valgus postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were found between PCL-stabilizing and PCL-retaining groups when KS knee scores, function scores, and flexion arc were evaluated. Two patients in PCL-retaining group underwent revision surgery due to aseptic loosening of tibial component. One patient in PCL-stabilizing group needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunk syndrome. CONCLUSION: There were no notable differences between the 2 groups and PCL-retaining design had outcomes as good as PCL-stabilizing total knee implant in osteoarthritic knees with severe varus deformity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6197631
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61976312018-10-25 Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity Ünkar, Ethem Ayhan Öztürkmen, Yusuf Şükür, Erhan Çarkçı, Engin Mert, Murat Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc Research Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) – retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties in patients with severe varus gonarthrosis. METHODS: Medical records of 112 knees of 96 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty for severe varus (≥15°) were reviewed. PCL-retaining and PCL-stabilizing groups consisted of 58 and 54 knees, respectively. Mean follow-up time was 56.6 months (range: 24–112 months). Knee Society (KS) clinical rating system was used in clinical evaluation. Range of motion, degree of flexion contracture, postoperative alignment, and complication rates were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Mean preoperative mechanical tibiofemoral angle was 20.1° in varus alignment, and was restored to 4.6° in valgus postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were found between PCL-stabilizing and PCL-retaining groups when KS knee scores, function scores, and flexion arc were evaluated. Two patients in PCL-retaining group underwent revision surgery due to aseptic loosening of tibial component. One patient in PCL-stabilizing group needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunk syndrome. CONCLUSION: There were no notable differences between the 2 groups and PCL-retaining design had outcomes as good as PCL-stabilizing total knee implant in osteoarthritic knees with severe varus deformity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic study. Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2017-03 2017-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6197631/ /pubmed/28108167 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.008 Text en © 2016 Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Ünkar, Ethem Ayhan
Öztürkmen, Yusuf
Şükür, Erhan
Çarkçı, Engin
Mert, Murat
Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity
title Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity
title_full Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity
title_fullStr Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity
title_full_unstemmed Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity
title_short Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity
title_sort posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6197631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28108167
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.008
work_keys_str_mv AT unkarethemayhan posteriorcruciateretainingversusposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyforosteoarthritiswithseverevarusdeformity
AT ozturkmenyusuf posteriorcruciateretainingversusposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyforosteoarthritiswithseverevarusdeformity
AT sukurerhan posteriorcruciateretainingversusposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyforosteoarthritiswithseverevarusdeformity
AT carkcıengin posteriorcruciateretainingversusposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyforosteoarthritiswithseverevarusdeformity
AT mertmurat posteriorcruciateretainingversusposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyforosteoarthritiswithseverevarusdeformity