Cruciate-Retaining Versus Cruciate-Substituting Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPrimary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed using cruciate-retaining (CR), cruciate-substituting (CS), or posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty designs. While there have been many studies comparing the outcomes of CR versus PS TKA, the current literature is lacking in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that compare outcomes of CR knees versus CS TKAs.MethodsThis study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature comparing CR and CS knees with regard to survivorship, functional, and patient-reported outcomes, range of motion (ROM), biomechanics, and revision rate. PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase were used for the literature search, and the Modified Coleman Methodology Score was used to assess the quality of the studies. ResultsSeven studies met the inclusion criteria. This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that there are no significant differences in survivorship, ROM, or clinical knee scores between the CR and CS knees. Postoperative complications did not vary greatly between the CR and CS groups. Among the seven studies, three CR designs needed revision for either patellar crepitus, joint stiffness, or aseptic loosening of the tibial component. One CS design needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunk syndrome.ConclusionCR and CS knees are both reasonable options for primary TKA.