Bicruciate-retaining versus cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty in implant fixation: a 10-year follow-up of a randomized RSA trial.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Tomofumi Kinoshita, Kristian R L Mortensen, Lina H Ingelsrud, Omar Muharemovic, Kirill Gromov, Anders Troelsen
{"title":"Bicruciate-retaining versus cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty in implant fixation: a 10-year follow-up of a randomized RSA trial.","authors":"Tomofumi Kinoshita, Kristian R L Mortensen, Lina H Ingelsrud, Omar Muharemovic, Kirill Gromov, Anders Troelsen","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2026.46805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong> Bicruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore physiological knee kinematics and joint stability by preserving both cruciate ligaments, potentially improving patient satisfaction. However, long-term clinical outcomes and tibial component migration remain insufficiently understood. We therefore aimed to evaluate long-term implant fixation and clinical outcome after BCR-TKA compared with cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong> We performed a long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to compare tibial implant migration between BCR-TKA and CR-TKA. The primary outcome was maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial component, measured with model-based RSA at 3 months, 1, 2, 5, and 10 years. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at identical time points. Mortality, reoperations, and revisions were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> 25 patients were included in each group. At 10 years, the estimated mean MTPM was 0.88 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.12) in the BCR group and 0.64 mm (CI 0.40-0.88) in the CR group (between-group difference -0.23 mm, CI -0.57 to 0.10). Estimated changes in OKS and FJS showed no evidence of differing longitudinal trajectories between groups. 2 revisions occurred in the BCR group, whereas none occurred in the CR group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> No significant differences were detected between BCR-TKA and CR-TKA in tibial implant migration or patient-reported outcomes over the 10-year follow-up. In contrast, the incidence of complications was higher in the BCR group, indicating that careful patient selection and optimization of surgical strategies remain important for BCR-TKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"97 ","pages":"672-677"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13583657/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.46805","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose:  Bicruciate-retaining (BCR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore physiological knee kinematics and joint stability by preserving both cruciate ligaments, potentially improving patient satisfaction. However, long-term clinical outcomes and tibial component migration remain insufficiently understood. We therefore aimed to evaluate long-term implant fixation and clinical outcome after BCR-TKA compared with cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA.

Methods:  We performed a long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to compare tibial implant migration between BCR-TKA and CR-TKA. The primary outcome was maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial component, measured with model-based RSA at 3 months, 1, 2, 5, and 10 years. Secondary outcomes included the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at identical time points. Mortality, reoperations, and revisions were recorded.

Results:  25 patients were included in each group. At 10 years, the estimated mean MTPM was 0.88 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.12) in the BCR group and 0.64 mm (CI 0.40-0.88) in the CR group (between-group difference -0.23 mm, CI -0.57 to 0.10). Estimated changes in OKS and FJS showed no evidence of differing longitudinal trajectories between groups. 2 revisions occurred in the BCR group, whereas none occurred in the CR group.

Conclusion:  No significant differences were detected between BCR-TKA and CR-TKA in tibial implant migration or patient-reported outcomes over the 10-year follow-up. In contrast, the incidence of complications was higher in the BCR group, indicating that careful patient selection and optimization of surgical strategies remain important for BCR-TKA.

双十字骨保留与双十字骨保留全膝关节置换术中的植入物固定:一项随机RSA试验的10年随访。
背景和目的:双十字韧带保留(BCR)全膝关节置换术(TKA)旨在通过保留双十字韧带来恢复膝关节的生理运动学和关节稳定性,潜在地提高患者的满意度。然而,长期临床结果和胫骨构件迁移仍然不够清楚。因此,我们的目的是评估BCR-TKA与CR-TKA后长期种植体固定和临床结果。方法:我们进行了一项长期随访的随机对照试验,使用放射立体分析(RSA)来比较BCR-TKA和CR-TKA的胫骨植入物迁移。主要结果是胫骨部件的最大总点运动(MTPM),在3个月、1、2、5和10年用基于模型的RSA测量。次要结果包括相同时间点的牛津膝关节评分(OKS)和遗忘关节评分(FJS)。记录死亡率、再手术率和手术修正率。结果:每组25例。在10年时,BCR组的估计平均MTPM为0.88 mm(95%可信区间[CI] 0.64-1.12), CR组的估计平均MTPM为0.64 mm (CI 0.40-0.88)(组间差异为-0.23 mm, CI -0.57 - 0.10)。OKS和FJS的估计变化显示各组之间没有不同的纵向轨迹。BCR组出现2次修改,CR组无修改。结论:在10年的随访中,BCR-TKA和CR-TKA在胫骨植入物迁移或患者报告的结果方面没有发现显著差异。相比之下,BCR组的并发症发生率更高,这表明谨慎的患者选择和优化手术策略对于BCR- tka仍然很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书