A Comparative Study of Clinical Outcomes Between Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION

We investigated a comparison of clinical outcomes between cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty. However, it is still controversial which design leads to better clinical results. In clinical settings, choosing either CR or PS is likely based on the surgeon's preferences. In this study, short-term clinical outcomes between CR and PS in patients who received a single knee prosthesis were compared using propensity score matching.

METHODS

Two hundred and twelve CR and 43 PS of a single knee prosthesis were enrolled in this study. After propensity score matching, 34 knees each in the CR and PS groups were chosen and were without significant differences in age at operation, gender, BMI, preoperative range of motion (ROM), preoperative femorotibial angle (FTA), and presence or absence of patellar replacement. Clinical scores, including ROM, Knee Society score (KSS), knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), except for the sports subscale, were compared between the CR and PS groups preoperatively and two years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Postoperatively, there were no significant differences in FTA, ROM, or KSS. Preoperative scores for the KOOS except for the pain subscale were comparable between the groups. Postoperatively, however, the PS group had a significantly higher score in the ADL subscale compared to the CR group (PS: 89.5 vs. CR: 80.8, p = 0.017). The KOOS subscales other than activities of daily living (ADL) were comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched cohort study, PS showed a better outcome for the ADL than the CR design. These findings suggest that choosing either CR or PS should not depend on the surgeon's preferences. A PS design may be preferable to CR for elderly patients.