Retention versus removal of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement: A systematic literature review within the Cochrane framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670510045345Abstract
Background There is no consensus as to whether to use a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retaining design or a posterior-stabilized design for total knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to establish the difference in functional, clinical, and radiological outcome between retention and removal of the PCL. Methods We conducted a search in Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane database, and Current Contents, along with reference checks and citation tracking. Randomized controlled trials were selected and methodological quality was assessed with the van Tulder and Jadad checklists by 2 independent reviewers. Results We found 8 randomized controlled trials. 2 treatment options were compared against PCL retention: PCL removal without post and cam mechanism (2 studies), and posterior-stabilized design (5 studies). 1 study included all 3 options. Range of motion was found to be 8° higher (105° vs. 113°) in the posterior-stabilized group compared to the PCL retention group (p = 0.01, 95% CI (1.7, 15)). Interpretation These results should be interpreted with caution, as the methodological quality of the studies was highly variable. Suggestions are given to improve future research on this specific aspect of knee arthroplasty. ▪Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Published
2005-01-01
How to Cite
Jacobs, W. C. H., Clement, D. J., & Wymenga, A. B. (2005). Retention versus removal of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee replacement: A systematic literature review within the Cochrane framework. Acta Orthopaedica, 76(6), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670510045345
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Acta Orthopaedica (Scandinavica) content is available freely online as from volume 1, 1930. The journal owner owns the copyright for all material published until volume 80, 2009. As of June 2009, the journal has however been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work. As of June 2009, articles have been published under CC-BY-NC or CC-BY licenses, unless otherwise specified.
