Surgical Technique Differences Between Posterior-Substituting and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

Rafael J. Sierra, Daniel J. Berry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Fundamental differences in implant design and the relative size of the flexion and extension spaces suggest that subtle, different surgical techniques should be used for cruciate-retaining and posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasties. Sacrificing the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) selectively opens the flexion space approximately 2 mm more than the extension space, which accounts for some of the technical differences. When performing a cruciate-retaining knee, the key points are to avoid stiffness due to an extra tight flexion space caused by a tight PCL and to avoid flexion instability from overrelease of the PCL. When performing a posterior-substituting knee, the key points are to avoid flexion instability due to an extra large flexion space caused by PCL sacrifice and to avoid postoperative knee flexion contracture by underresection of the distal femur. For posterior-sacrificing knees, cam-post impingement is a potential problem and can be avoided by avoiding excessive femoral component flexion and tibial component slope.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)20-23
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Arthroplasty
Volume23
Issue number7 SUPPL.
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2008

Fingerprint

Posterior Cruciate Ligament
Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Knee
Contracture
Thigh
Femur

Keywords

  • cruciate-retaining
  • posterior-substituting
  • total knee arthroplasty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Surgical Technique Differences Between Posterior-Substituting and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty. / Sierra, Rafael J.; Berry, Daniel J.

In: Journal of Arthroplasty, Vol. 23, No. 7 SUPPL., 10.2008, p. 20-23.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3d04f5522d6b401ba1cef69e31a3c232,
title = "Surgical Technique Differences Between Posterior-Substituting and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty",
abstract = "Fundamental differences in implant design and the relative size of the flexion and extension spaces suggest that subtle, different surgical techniques should be used for cruciate-retaining and posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasties. Sacrificing the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) selectively opens the flexion space approximately 2 mm more than the extension space, which accounts for some of the technical differences. When performing a cruciate-retaining knee, the key points are to avoid stiffness due to an extra tight flexion space caused by a tight PCL and to avoid flexion instability from overrelease of the PCL. When performing a posterior-substituting knee, the key points are to avoid flexion instability due to an extra large flexion space caused by PCL sacrifice and to avoid postoperative knee flexion contracture by underresection of the distal femur. For posterior-sacrificing knees, cam-post impingement is a potential problem and can be avoided by avoiding excessive femoral component flexion and tibial component slope.",
keywords = "cruciate-retaining, posterior-substituting, total knee arthroplasty",
author = "Sierra, {Rafael J.} and Berry, {Daniel J.}",
year = "2008",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "23",
pages = "20--23",
journal = "Journal of Arthroplasty",
issn = "0883-5403",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "7 SUPPL.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surgical Technique Differences Between Posterior-Substituting and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

AU - Sierra, Rafael J.

AU - Berry, Daniel J.

PY - 2008/10

Y1 - 2008/10

N2 - Fundamental differences in implant design and the relative size of the flexion and extension spaces suggest that subtle, different surgical techniques should be used for cruciate-retaining and posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasties. Sacrificing the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) selectively opens the flexion space approximately 2 mm more than the extension space, which accounts for some of the technical differences. When performing a cruciate-retaining knee, the key points are to avoid stiffness due to an extra tight flexion space caused by a tight PCL and to avoid flexion instability from overrelease of the PCL. When performing a posterior-substituting knee, the key points are to avoid flexion instability due to an extra large flexion space caused by PCL sacrifice and to avoid postoperative knee flexion contracture by underresection of the distal femur. For posterior-sacrificing knees, cam-post impingement is a potential problem and can be avoided by avoiding excessive femoral component flexion and tibial component slope.

AB - Fundamental differences in implant design and the relative size of the flexion and extension spaces suggest that subtle, different surgical techniques should be used for cruciate-retaining and posterior-substituting total knee arthroplasties. Sacrificing the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) selectively opens the flexion space approximately 2 mm more than the extension space, which accounts for some of the technical differences. When performing a cruciate-retaining knee, the key points are to avoid stiffness due to an extra tight flexion space caused by a tight PCL and to avoid flexion instability from overrelease of the PCL. When performing a posterior-substituting knee, the key points are to avoid flexion instability due to an extra large flexion space caused by PCL sacrifice and to avoid postoperative knee flexion contracture by underresection of the distal femur. For posterior-sacrificing knees, cam-post impingement is a potential problem and can be avoided by avoiding excessive femoral component flexion and tibial component slope.

KW - cruciate-retaining

KW - posterior-substituting

KW - total knee arthroplasty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=52049096596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=52049096596&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.004

DO - 10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 18701240

AN - SCOPUS:52049096596

VL - 23

SP - 20

EP - 23

JO - Journal of Arthroplasty

JF - Journal of Arthroplasty

SN - 0883-5403

IS - 7 SUPPL.

ER -