Outcomes are Better With a Medial-Stabilized vs a Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Implanted With Kinematic Alignment

Background: There is no consensus whether a posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee device is superior to a more congruent, cruciate-substituting, medial-stabilized device (MS). This study compared the clinical outcomes of these devices. The primary hypothesis was that the clinical outcomes would be better in the MS group implanted with kinematic alignment. Methods: This prospective, randomized, single-center Level 1 study compared the outcomes of 99 patients who received a PS device and 101 patients who received an MS device implanted with kinematic alignment. Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent were obtained. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, 6 weeks, 6 months, and annually. Results: All subjects reached the minimum follow-up of 2 years. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics, preoperative scores, or alignment (preoperative or postoperative). Tourniquet time was 7.24% longer for the PS group (40.28 min vs 37.56 min, P <.0086). There were significant differences between groups for the 1-year and 2-year Knee Society scores, Forgotten Joint Score, and ROM; in every case favoring the MS group. The FJS was 68.3 in the MS group at 2 years and 58.3 in the PS group (P = .02). The maximum flexion at 2 years was 132 degrees in the MS group and 124 degrees in the PS group (P <.0001). Conclusion: The clinical outcomes of the MS group at 1 and 2 years were better. At the minimum 2-year follow-up, the results demonstrate the superiority of the medial-stabilized device in terms of multiple clinical outcomes. (C) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study compared the clinical outcomes of posterior-stabilized (PS) and medial-stabilized (MS) total knee devices, and found that the MS group had better clinical outcomes in multiple aspects.