The Surgeonís Role in Relative Success of PCL-Retaining and PCL-Substituting Total Knee Arthroplasty

HSS Journal: Volume 10, Issue 2

Merrill A. Ritter, MD

The Center for Hip and Knee Surgery, St. Francis Hospital, Mooresville, IN

Kenneth E. Davis, MS

The Center for Hip and Knee Surgery, St. Francis Hospital, Mooresville, IN

Alex Farris, BA

The Center for Hip and Knee Surgery, St. Francis Hospital, Mooresville, IN

E. Michael Keating, MD

The Center for Hip and Knee Surgery, St. Francis Hospital, Mooresville, IN

Philip M. Faris, MD

The Center for Hip and Knee Surgery, St. Francis Hospital, Mooresville, IN


Abstract

Background
The orthopedic literature has not shown a universal and replicated difference, outside of flexion, in clinical results between posterior cruciate ligament retention and posterior cruciate ligament substitution in total knee arthroplasty.

Questions/Purposes
This study was performed to compare the restoration of flexion and knee function in a large series of cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasties (TKRs). In addition, we aimed to study how other variables, such as those unique to each surgeon, may have affected the results.

Patients and Methods
The current study evaluated 8,607 total knee arthroplasties in 5,594 patients performed by six surgeons, each using one of four prosthesis designs (two posterior cruciate ligament retaining, two posterior cruciate ligament substituting). Knees were compared at the level of cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting knees, at the level of the four prostheses, and at the level of surgeon-implant combinations. Least squared means scores were obtained through multiple linear regression, analysis of variance, and the maximum likelihood method.

Results
At the level of posterior cruciate ligament treatment, posterior cruciate ligament substitution as a whole showed 3.2° greater flexion than posterior cruciate ligament retention. At the prosthesis level, cruciate-substituting models provided greater flexion and cruciate-retaining models provided higher function scores. In the surgeon-implant combinations, surgeons provided mixed results that often did not reflect findings from other levels; one surgeon's use of a posterior cruciate ligament retaining prosthesis achieved 14.7° greater flexion than the surgeon's use of a corresponding posterior cruciate ligament substituting design.

Conclusion
Posterior cruciate ligament treatment is confounded by other variables, including the operating surgeon. The arthroplasty surgeon should choose a prosthesis based, not only on outside results, but also on personal experience and comfort.
A commentary by Thomas P. Sculco, MD is available for this article.

Level of Evidence
Therapeutic Study Level III. See Levels of Evidence tables for a complete description.

This article appears in HSS Journal: Volume 10, Issue 2
View the full HSS Journal Online First article at springerlink.com.

About the HSS Journal

HSS Journal, an academic peer-reviewed journal published three times a year, February, July and October. The Journal accepts and publishes peer reviewed articles from around the world that contribute to the advancement of the knowledge of musculoskeletal diseases and disorders.

^ Back to Top
Request an Appointment