Midterm comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus -substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II prosthesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial

Kengo Harato, Robert B. Bourne, Jan Victor, Mark Snyder, John Hart, Michael D. Ries

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

71 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to compare midterm outcomes of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) versus posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) procedures using the Genesis II total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN). Ninety-nine (99) CR and 93 PS TKA's were analyzed in this prospective, randomized clinical trial. Surgeries were performed at seven medical centers by participating surgeons. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society Score, Range of Motion, WOMAC, SF-12, and Radiographic Findings), in addition to postoperative complications, were evaluated with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Following data analysis, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or preoperative clinical measures between the two groups. At the latest follow-up interval, no significant differences were found between the CR and PS groups with regards to functional assessment, patient satisfaction, or postoperative complication. However, the PS group did display statistically significant improvements in range of motion when compared with the CR group. The results of this investigation would suggest that, while comparable in regards to supporting good clinical outcomes, the PS Genesis II design does appear to support significantly improved postoperative range of motion when compared with the CR design.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)217-221
Number of pages5
JournalKnee
Volume15
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008 Jun

Fingerprint

Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Articular Range of Motion
Prostheses and Implants
Randomized Controlled Trials
Patient Satisfaction
Demography

Keywords

  • Multicenter randomized trial
  • Posterior cruciate-retaining
  • Posterior cruciate-substituting
  • Postoperative range of motion
  • Total knee arthroplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Midterm comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus -substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II prosthesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial. / Harato, Kengo; Bourne, Robert B.; Victor, Jan; Snyder, Mark; Hart, John; Ries, Michael D.

In: Knee, Vol. 15, No. 3, 06.2008, p. 217-221.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5c3595eb81444035a6a4aa7e2749161e,
title = "Midterm comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus -substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II prosthesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial",
abstract = "The purpose of the current study was to compare midterm outcomes of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) versus posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) procedures using the Genesis II total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN). Ninety-nine (99) CR and 93 PS TKA's were analyzed in this prospective, randomized clinical trial. Surgeries were performed at seven medical centers by participating surgeons. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society Score, Range of Motion, WOMAC, SF-12, and Radiographic Findings), in addition to postoperative complications, were evaluated with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Following data analysis, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or preoperative clinical measures between the two groups. At the latest follow-up interval, no significant differences were found between the CR and PS groups with regards to functional assessment, patient satisfaction, or postoperative complication. However, the PS group did display statistically significant improvements in range of motion when compared with the CR group. The results of this investigation would suggest that, while comparable in regards to supporting good clinical outcomes, the PS Genesis II design does appear to support significantly improved postoperative range of motion when compared with the CR design.",
keywords = "Multicenter randomized trial, Posterior cruciate-retaining, Posterior cruciate-substituting, Postoperative range of motion, Total knee arthroplasty",
author = "Kengo Harato and Bourne, {Robert B.} and Jan Victor and Mark Snyder and John Hart and Ries, {Michael D.}",
year = "2008",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.knee.2007.12.007",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "217--221",
journal = "Knee",
issn = "0968-0160",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Midterm comparison of posterior cruciate-retaining versus -substituting total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis II prosthesis. A multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial

AU - Harato, Kengo

AU - Bourne, Robert B.

AU - Victor, Jan

AU - Snyder, Mark

AU - Hart, John

AU - Ries, Michael D.

PY - 2008/6

Y1 - 2008/6

N2 - The purpose of the current study was to compare midterm outcomes of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) versus posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) procedures using the Genesis II total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN). Ninety-nine (99) CR and 93 PS TKA's were analyzed in this prospective, randomized clinical trial. Surgeries were performed at seven medical centers by participating surgeons. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society Score, Range of Motion, WOMAC, SF-12, and Radiographic Findings), in addition to postoperative complications, were evaluated with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Following data analysis, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or preoperative clinical measures between the two groups. At the latest follow-up interval, no significant differences were found between the CR and PS groups with regards to functional assessment, patient satisfaction, or postoperative complication. However, the PS group did display statistically significant improvements in range of motion when compared with the CR group. The results of this investigation would suggest that, while comparable in regards to supporting good clinical outcomes, the PS Genesis II design does appear to support significantly improved postoperative range of motion when compared with the CR design.

AB - The purpose of the current study was to compare midterm outcomes of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) versus posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) procedures using the Genesis II total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, TN). Ninety-nine (99) CR and 93 PS TKA's were analyzed in this prospective, randomized clinical trial. Surgeries were performed at seven medical centers by participating surgeons. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society Score, Range of Motion, WOMAC, SF-12, and Radiographic Findings), in addition to postoperative complications, were evaluated with a minimum follow-up of 5 years. Following data analysis, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or preoperative clinical measures between the two groups. At the latest follow-up interval, no significant differences were found between the CR and PS groups with regards to functional assessment, patient satisfaction, or postoperative complication. However, the PS group did display statistically significant improvements in range of motion when compared with the CR group. The results of this investigation would suggest that, while comparable in regards to supporting good clinical outcomes, the PS Genesis II design does appear to support significantly improved postoperative range of motion when compared with the CR design.

KW - Multicenter randomized trial

KW - Posterior cruciate-retaining

KW - Posterior cruciate-substituting

KW - Postoperative range of motion

KW - Total knee arthroplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=42749086369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=42749086369&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.knee.2007.12.007

DO - 10.1016/j.knee.2007.12.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 18325770

AN - SCOPUS:42749086369

VL - 15

SP - 217

EP - 221

JO - Knee

JF - Knee

SN - 0968-0160

IS - 3

ER -