Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Background: Prosthetic design for the use in primary total knee arthroplasty has evolved into designs that preserve the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and those in which the ligament is routinely sacrificed (posterior stabilized). In patients with a functional PCL the decision which design is chosen depends largely on the favour and training of the surgeon. The objective of this study is to determine whether the patient's perceived outcome and speed of recovery differs between a posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty and a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Methods/Design: A randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Patients who are admitted for primary unilateral TKA due to primary osteoarthrosis are included when the following inclusion criteria are met: non-fixed fixed varus or valgus deformity less than 10 degrees, age between 55 and 85 years, body mass index less than 35 kg/m(2) and ASA score (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) I or II. Patients are randomized in 2 groups. Patients in the posterior cruciate retaining group will receive a prosthesis with a posterior cut-out for the posterior cruciate ligament and relatively flat topography. In patients allocated to the posterior stabilized group, in which the posterior cruciate ligament is excised, the design may substitute for this function by an intercondylar tibial prominence that articulates with the femur in flexion. Measurements will take place preoperatively and 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. At all measurement points patient's perceived outcome will be assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcome measures are quality of life (SF-36) and physician reported functional status and range of motion as determined with the Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSS). Discussion: In the current practice both posterior cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized designs for total knee arthroplasty are being used. To date no studies have been performed determining whether there is a difference in patient's perceived outcome between the two designs. Additionally, there is a lack of studies determining the speed of recovery in both designs as most studies only determine the final outcome. This randomised controlled study has been designed to determine whether the patient's perceived outcome and speed of recovery differs between a posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty and a posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty

Is there evidence for accelerated polyethylene wear in uncemented compared to cemented acetabular components? A systematic review of the literature

Joint arthroplasty registries show an increased rate of aseptic loosening in uncemented acetabular components as compared to cemented acetabular components. Since loosening is associated with particulate wear debris, we postulated that uncemented acetabular components demonstrate a higher polyethylene wear rate than cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. We performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, comparing the wear rate in uncemented and cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. Studies were identified using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Study quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The search resulted in 425 papers. After excluding duplicates and selection based on title and abstracts, nine studies were found eligible for further analysis: two randomised controlled trials, and seven observational studies. One randomised controlled trial found a higher polyethylene wear rate in uncemented acetabular components, while the other found no differences. Three out of seven observational studies showed a higher polyethylene wear in uncemented acetabular component fixation; the other four studies did not show any differences in wear rates. The available evidence suggests that a higher annual wear rate may be encountered in uncemented acetabular components as compared to cemented components