A Comparison of the PCL-Retaining AGC and Posterior Stabilizing Legacy Protheses for Total Knee Arthroplasty

HSS Journal


Philip M. Faris, MD
Merrill A. Ritter
Thomas J. Aleto, MD Andrew L. Pierce
The Center for Hip and Knee Surgery, Mooresville, IN

Excerpt:
Introduction: Excellent clinical results have been reported for both posterior-stabilized and posterior cruciate ligament retaining prosthesis for total knee arthroplasty [1-6]. Several studies have directly compared these devices. The studies have utilized a variety of knee scoring systems, questionnaires, and radiographic analysis to evaluate the results.
Many of these studies have concluded that there is no difference between the posterior-stabilizing and PCL retaining prostheses [7-12]. However, a report by Conditt et al [11] suggested that posterior-stabilized prostheses inhibit deep flexion in some movements, whereas reports by Maruyama et al [9] and Hirsch et al [10] have determined that these prostheses provide a greater range of motion.

The purpose of this study is to compare two devices used in the authors' facility: the PCL retaining AGC (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) and the posterior-stabilizing Legacy (Zimmer Warsaw, IN, USA).

This article appears in HSS Journal: Volume 2, Number 2.
View the full article at springerlink.com.


About the HSS Journal
HSS Journal, an academic peer-reviewed journal, is published twice a year, February and September, and features articles by internal faculty and HSS alumni that present current research and clinical work in the field of musculoskeletal medicine performed at HSS, including research articles, surgical procedures, and case reports.


^ Back to Top
Request an Appointment