No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial
Abstract Purpose Ultracongruent (UC) inserts were designed to overcome potential issues with posterior stabilized (PS) inserts, including bone resection, post‐breakage, and patellar clunk syndrome. However, there remains a shortage of high‐quality studies directly comparing this insert design to the...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024-10-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.70043 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850033056527679488 |
|---|---|
| author | Fernando Macedo João Lucas Patrícia Cunha Miguel Rocha Rui Cerqueira Tiago Basto João Moura |
| author_facet | Fernando Macedo João Lucas Patrícia Cunha Miguel Rocha Rui Cerqueira Tiago Basto João Moura |
| author_sort | Fernando Macedo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Purpose Ultracongruent (UC) inserts were designed to overcome potential issues with posterior stabilized (PS) inserts, including bone resection, post‐breakage, and patellar clunk syndrome. However, there remains a shortage of high‐quality studies directly comparing this insert design to the established PS Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare clinical outcomes, range of motion, and complications of UC and PS TKA. Methods Ninety six patients with primary knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to either the PS or the UC group. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding age, body mass index, sex, or Osteoarthritis grade. The measured outcomes were Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Range of Motion (ROM), recorded preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperative. Both the patient and interviewer were blinded to the allocation group. Results Eighty one patients were included in the analysis, with a mean follow‐up of 1.3 years. Both groups exhibited a gradual improvement in KOOS. Still, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups during the follow‐up examinations at 3 or 6 months in KOOS or range of motion. No complication occurred in either group during the follow‐up period. Conclusion Both designs demonstrated comparable positive outcomes, reinforcing the viability of UC designs as an alternative to the well‐established PS TKA. Levels of Evidence Level l, randomized controlled trial. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-fee9ddbcd24840128ec3b5c80c245fdc |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2197-1153 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-10-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics |
| spelling | doaj-art-fee9ddbcd24840128ec3b5c80c245fdc2025-08-20T02:58:21ZengWileyJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics2197-11532024-10-01114n/an/a10.1002/jeo2.70043No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trialFernando Macedo0João Lucas1Patrícia Cunha2Miguel Rocha3Rui Cerqueira4Tiago Basto5João Moura6Orthopedics and Traumatolgy Department Hospital Senhora da Oliveira Guimarães PortugalOrthopedics and Traumatolgy Department Hospital Senhora da Oliveira Guimarães PortugalOrthopedics and Traumatolgy Department Hospital Senhora da Oliveira Guimarães PortugalOrthopedics and Traumatolgy Department Hospital Senhora da Oliveira Guimarães PortugalOrthopedics and Traumatolgy Department Hospital Senhora da Oliveira Guimarães PortugalOrthopedics and Traumatolgy Department Hospital Senhora da Oliveira Guimarães PortugalOrthopedics and Traumatolgy Department Hospital Senhora da Oliveira Guimarães PortugalAbstract Purpose Ultracongruent (UC) inserts were designed to overcome potential issues with posterior stabilized (PS) inserts, including bone resection, post‐breakage, and patellar clunk syndrome. However, there remains a shortage of high‐quality studies directly comparing this insert design to the established PS Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare clinical outcomes, range of motion, and complications of UC and PS TKA. Methods Ninety six patients with primary knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to either the PS or the UC group. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding age, body mass index, sex, or Osteoarthritis grade. The measured outcomes were Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Range of Motion (ROM), recorded preoperatively and at 3 and 6 months postoperative. Both the patient and interviewer were blinded to the allocation group. Results Eighty one patients were included in the analysis, with a mean follow‐up of 1.3 years. Both groups exhibited a gradual improvement in KOOS. Still, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups during the follow‐up examinations at 3 or 6 months in KOOS or range of motion. No complication occurred in either group during the follow‐up period. Conclusion Both designs demonstrated comparable positive outcomes, reinforcing the viability of UC designs as an alternative to the well‐established PS TKA. Levels of Evidence Level l, randomized controlled trial.https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.70043anterior stabilizedposterior stabilizedTKATKRultracongruent insert |
| spellingShingle | Fernando Macedo João Lucas Patrícia Cunha Miguel Rocha Rui Cerqueira Tiago Basto João Moura No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics anterior stabilized posterior stabilized TKA TKR ultracongruent insert |
| title | No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_full | No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_fullStr | No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_short | No difference in patient‐reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial |
| title_sort | no difference in patient reported outcomes or range of motion between ultracongruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty a randomized controlled trial |
| topic | anterior stabilized posterior stabilized TKA TKR ultracongruent insert |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/jeo2.70043 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fernandomacedo nodifferenceinpatientreportedoutcomesorrangeofmotionbetweenultracongruentandposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT joaolucas nodifferenceinpatientreportedoutcomesorrangeofmotionbetweenultracongruentandposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT patriciacunha nodifferenceinpatientreportedoutcomesorrangeofmotionbetweenultracongruentandposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT miguelrocha nodifferenceinpatientreportedoutcomesorrangeofmotionbetweenultracongruentandposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT ruicerqueira nodifferenceinpatientreportedoutcomesorrangeofmotionbetweenultracongruentandposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT tiagobasto nodifferenceinpatientreportedoutcomesorrangeofmotionbetweenultracongruentandposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT joaomoura nodifferenceinpatientreportedoutcomesorrangeofmotionbetweenultracongruentandposteriorstabilizedtotalkneearthroplastyarandomizedcontrolledtrial |