header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

POSTERIOR CONDYLAR OFFSET CHANGES AND ITS EFFECT ON CLINICAL OUTCOMES AFTER POSTERIOR-SUBSTITUTING, FIXED-BEARING TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: ANTERIOR VERSUS POSTERIOR REFERENCING

International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA) 31st Annual Congress, London, England, October 2018. Part 1.



Abstract

Purpose

We sought to determine whether there was a difference in the posterior condylar offset (PCO), posterior condylar offset ratio (PCOR) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with anterior referencing (AR) or posterior referencing (PR) systems. We also assessed whether the PCO and PCOR changes, as well as patient factors were related to range of motion (ROM) in each referencing system. In addition, we examined whether the improvements in clinical outcomes differed between the two referencing systems.

Methods

This retrospective study included 130 consecutive patients (184 knees) with osteoarthritis who underwent primary posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-substituting fixed-bearing TKA. All patients were categorized into the AR or PR group according to the referencing system used. Radiographic parameters, including PCO and PCOR, were measured using true lateral radiographs. The difference between preoperative and postoperative PCO and PCOR values were calculated. Clinical outcomes including ROM and Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) scores were evaluated preoperatively and at 2 years after TKA. The PCO, PCOR values, and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Furthermore, multiple linear regression analysis was performed to determine the factors related to postoperative ROM in each referencing system.

Results

The postoperative PCO was greater in the AR group (28.4 mm) than in the PR group (27.4 mm), whereas the PCO was more consistently preserved in the PR group. In contrast, there was no difference in the mean postoperative PCOR between the two groups. The mean postoperative ROM after TKA was greater in the AR group (129°) than in the PR group (122°), whereas improvement in WOMAC score did not differ between the two groups. Preoperative ROM was the only factor related to postoperative ROM in both groups.

Conclusions

The postoperative PCO was greater in the AR group, whereas the PCO was more consistently preserved after surgery in the PR group. The postoperative PCO and PCOR changes did not affect the postoperative ROM, regardless of the referencing system used after PCL-substituting fixed-bearing TKA. Furthermore, similar clinical outcomes were achieved in the AR and PR groups.


Email: