Patient Reported Outcomes of Total Knee Arthroplasty with Ultra-congruent Lipped Polyethylene Liners: A Randomized Study

Document Type : RESEARCH PAPER

Authors

Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA

10.22038/abjs.2024.80407.3674

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the Depuy curved (CVD) polyethylene insert to the 
curved plus (CVD+) design in TKA, which has an increased dished curve for increased articulation 
congruence and thus secondary anterior to posterior stability.
Methods: A randomized controlled trial with 100 patients was conducted to compare two knee replacement designs 
(CVD and CVD+ polyethylene inserts) using the Johnson and Johnson DePuy PFC Sigma total knee replacement. 
All participants, were randomized and blinded to reduce bias. The trial achieved 100% recruitment and maintained 
blinding throughout the study. Demographics, baseline characteristics, and KOOS scores were recorded preoperatively, and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. In addition, physical and mental component scores (PCS and 
MCS) were collected at 12 months post-operatively.
Results: Sixty patients had preoperative data, split equally into CVD and CVD+ groups. The cohort's average age 
was 71.47 years, and 72% were female, with no statistically significant demographic differences between groups. 
Preoperative measures showed no differences in Pain, ADL, or QOL. At 3 months, no significant differences were 
noted, though the QOL difference was 64.45 ± 16.57 for CVD and 52.94 ± 27.1 for CVD+ (p = 0.15). At 12 months, 
trends favored the CVD group, but differences in Pain, ADL, QOL, PCS, and MCS were not significant. 
Complications were similar, except for stiffness, with 0 cases in the CVD group and 3 in the CVD+ group at 3 months; 
both had 2 additional cases at 12 months.
Conclusion: In our study, there was no difference between designs in terms of pain, activities of daily living, and 
standard outcomes. Further studies are required to support the benefit of increased congruence in the CVD+ design, 
even though widespread adoption has been common across the industry.
 Level of evidence: II

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Daher M, Haykal G, Ghoul A, Tarchichi J, Sebaaly A. The Efficacy of Bone Wax in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Arch bone Jt Surg. 2024; 12(5):298-305. doi:10.22038/ABJS.2024.73243.3392.
  2. Daher M, Estephan M, Ghoul A, Tarchichi J, Mansour J. Hip Strengthening After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review. Arch bone Jt Surg. 2024; 12(6):373-379. doi:10.22038/ABJS.2024.76202.3520.
  3. Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, et al. Prevalence of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97(17):1386-1397. doi:10.2106/JBJS.N.01141.
  4. Shichman I, Roof M, Askew N, et al. Projections and Epidemiology of Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Medicare Patients to 2040-2060. JBJS Open Access. 2023; 8(1). doi:10.2106/JBJS.OA.22.00112.
  5. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ. Patient Satisfaction after Total Knee Arthroplasty: Who is Satisfied and who is Not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(1):57-63. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9.
  6. O’Donnell R, Brown K, Krueger V, Glasser J, Antoci V. Comparing patient reported outcomes in depuy sigma curved

 

       versus curved plus polyethylene inserts in cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop. 2021; 24:54-57. doi:10.1016/j.jor.2021.01.017.

  1. Choi YJ, Ra HJ. Patient Satisfaction after Total Knee Arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2016; 28(1):1-15. doi:10.5792/ksrr.2016.28.1.1.
  2. Peters CL, Mulkey P, Erickson J, Anderson MB, Pelt CE. Comparison of Total Knee Arthroplasty With Highly Congruent Anterior-stabilized Bearings versus a Cruciate-retaining Design. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472(1):175-180. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3068-6.
  3. Kim JY, Cheon SH, Kyung HS. Mid-term Results of Total Knee Arthroplasty Using PFC Sigma RP-F. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2012; 24(4):221-226. doi:10.5792/ksrr.2012.24.4.221.
  4. Clayton RAE, Amin AK, Gaston MS, Brenkel IJ. Five-year results of the Sigma total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2006; 13(5):359-364. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2006.06.003.
  5. Reddy N, Saini MK, Naresh G, Thakur A, Podili R, Reddy J. Clinical, Functional, and Midterm Survival Analysis on Sigma Curved Plus Ultracongruent Polyethylene Insert in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Study. Cureus. 2020; 12(11):e11519. doi:10.7759/cureus.11519.
  6. Fantozzi S, Catani F, Ensini A, Leardini A, Giannini S. Femoral rollback of cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee replacements: In vivo fluoroscopic analysis during activities of daily living. J Orthop Res. 2006; 24(12):2222-2229. doi:10.1002/jor.20306.
  7. Mazzucchelli L, Deledda D, Rosso F, et al. cruciate retaining and cruciate substituting ultra-congruent insert. Ann Transl Med. 2016; 4(1):2. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.12.52.
  8. Lützner J, Beyer F, Lützner C, Riedel R, Tille E. Ultracongruent insert design is a safe alternative to posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: 5-year results of a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022; 30(9):3000-3006. doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06545-4.
  9. Stirling P, Clement ND, MacDonald D, Patton JT, Burnett R, Macpherson GJ. Early functional outcomes after condylar-stabilizing (deep-dish) versus standard bearing surface for cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2019; 31(1):3. doi:10.1186/s43019-019-0001-7.
  10. Dalton P, Holder C, Rainbird S, Lewis PL. Survivorship Comparisons of Ultracongruent, Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Tibial Inserts Using a Single Knee System Design: Results From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Arthroplasty. 2022; 37(3):468-475. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2021.11.001.

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 13, Issue 2
February 2025
Pages 100-105

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 June 2024
  • Revise Date: 04 August 2024
  • Accept Date: 04 August 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics