AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThis isan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional results of posteriorcruciate ligament (PCL)e retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties in patients withsevere varus gonarthrosis.Methods: Medical records of 112 knees of 96 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty for severevarus ( 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: 24e112 months). Knee Society (KS) clinicalrating system was used in clinical evaluation. Range of motion, degree offlexion contracture, postoperative alignment, and complication rates were compared between the groups.Results: Mean preoperative mechanical tibiofemoral angle was 20.1in varus alignment, and wasrestored to 4.6in valgus postoperatively. No statistically signiŞcant differences were found betweenPCL-stabilizing and PCL-retaining groups when KS knee scores, function scores, andflexion arc wereevaluated. Two patients in PCL-retaining group underwent revision surgery due to aseptic loosening oftibial component. One patient in PCL-stabilizing group needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunksyndrome.Conclusion: There were no notable differences between the 2 groups and PCL-retaining design hadoutcomes as good as PCL-stabilizing total knee implant in osteoarthritic knees with severe varusdeformity.Level of evidence: Level III, Therapeutic study.© 2016 Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This isan open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).