BACKGROUND: Both the cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) implant systems are commonplace in modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) practice. However, there is controversy regarding functional outcomes and survivorship. The aim of the underlying study was to evaluate differences between CR and PS TKA regarding knee function, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as well as complication rates.

METHODS: 140 patients with knee osteoarthritis scheduled for an unconstrained TKA were enrolled in a prospective, randomized study. Patients received either a CR or PS implant. Range of motion and PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level, University of California Los Angeles Activity scale and subjective satisfaction) were assessed prior to, 3 months, 1 and 2 years after surgery.

RESULTS: We found minor differences between treatment groups regarding demographic factors. Within the PS group duration of surgery was longer (mean PS 81.4 min vs CR 76.0 min, P = .006). We observed better flexion (median PS 120.0° vs CR 115°, P = .017) and an overall better range of motion (median PS 120.0° vs CR 115.0°, P = .008) for the PS group. PROMs did not differ between groups. At 2-year follow-up there were no revisions in either cohort. Five patients needed reoperations. Three patients needed manipulation under anesthesia, 2 in the CR and one in the PS group.

CONCLUSION: While PS TKA achieved a better flexion capability, PROMs were similar in CR and PS TKA. The CR implant design continues to be a reliable option for patients with an intact posterior cruciate ligament.