Advertisement

The Posterior Cruciate Ligament and Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Richard S. Laskin
Chapter

Abstract

Over the past fifteen years, the question of whether to retain or sacrifice the posterior cruciate ligament during total knee replacement has been debated at most major total knee symposia. Many of the reasons given for one technique or the other have been anecdotal visceral, rather than scientific and reflective. It is, however, only by such scientific evaluation that one can hope to arrive at some meaningful conclusion regarding this important structure and its function in total knee replacement.

Keywords

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Total Knee Arthroplasty Cruciate Ligament Posterior Cruciate Ligament Knee Replacement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Andriacchi TP, Galante JO: Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. J. Arthroplasty, 3: 13–19, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andriacchi TP, Galante JO: Fermier RW: The influence of total knee replacement design on walking and stair climbing. J Bone Joint Surgery, 64A: 1328–1334, 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banks S.A., Markovich G.D., and Hodge W.A.: In vivo kinematics of cruciate retaining and substituting knee arthroplasties. J. Arthroplasty, 12: 297–304, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cloutier JM: Results of total knee arthroplasty with a non-constrained prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surgery, 65A: 906–915, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cloutier JM: Long term results after non constrained total knee arthroplasty. Cl.Orth., 273: 63–65, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cobb AC, Ewald FC, Wright RJ, Sledge CB: The kinematic knee: survivorship analysis of 1943 knees. J Bone Joint Surgery, 72B: 542–546, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coventry MN, Upshaw JE, Riley LJ, Finerman GAM, Turner RH: Geomedic total knee arthroplasty. Cl.Orth., 94: 171–184,1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dennis D., Komistek R,D„ Hoff W.A., Gabriel, S.M.: In vivo kinematics derived using an inverse perspective technique. Cl.Orth., 331:107–117, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freeman MAR: A three to five year follow up of the Freeman Swanson arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surgery, 59B: 64–71, 1977.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman MAR, Todd RC, Bamert P, Day WH: ICLH arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surgery, 60B: 339–344, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gunston FH, Mackenzie RL: Complications of polycentric knee arthroplasty. Cl.Orth., 97: 120–127, 1976.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoffmann AA, Murdock LE, Wyatt RWB, Alpert JP: Total knee arthroplasty. A two to four year experience using an asymmetric tibial tray and a deep trochlear groove femoral component. Cl.Orth., 269: 78–84, 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hollis JM, Lyon RM, Marcin JP: Effect of age and loading axis on the failure properties of human ligaments. Transactions of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 13: 83, 1998Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hungerford D.S., Kenna RV, Krackow KA: The porous coated anatomical total knee. Orth. Clinic North Am. 13: 103–122, 1982.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Insall JN, Laschiewicz PF, Burstein AH: The posterior stabilized condylar prosthesis: a modification of the total condylar design. J Bone Joint Surgery, 64A: 1317–1323, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Sshine J: A comparison of four models of total knee replacement prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surgery, 58A: 754–765, 1976.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan F.S., Nixon J.E., Reiz M.: Age-related changes in proprioception and sensation of joint position. Acta Ortho.Scand., 56: 72–74, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laskin RS: Total condylar knee replacement in rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surgery, 63: 42–49, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laskin RS: RMC total knee replacement. A review of 166 cases. J. Arthroplasty, 1: 11–19, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laskin RS: The Genesis modular total knee replacement with posterior cruciate retention. A three year follow up study. The Knee, 1: 146–153, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Laskin RS, O’Flynn H: Total knee replacement with posterior cruciate ligament retention in rheumatoid arthritis. Problems and complications. Cl.Orth., 345: 5–10, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Laskin RS, Rieger MA: The surgical technique for performing a total knee replacement arthroplasty. Orth. Clinic North Am., 20(1): 31–48, 1989.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Laskin RS, Rieger MA, Schob C, Turen C: The posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis in the knee with a severe fixed deformity. Am.J Knee Surgery, 1: 203 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Laskin R S. Range of motion after total knee replacement. Orthopaedic Transaction, 1998.(In Press).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laskin R.S. and Paletta G.: Total knee replacement in the patient who has undergone a patellectomy. J Bone Joint Surgery, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Marmor L: The modular knee. ClOrth., 94: 242–248, 1973.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schultz R.A., Miller D.C., Kerr C.S.: Mechanoreceptors in human cruciate ligaments. A histologic study. J Bone Joint Surgery, 66A: 1072–1076, 1998.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scott R: Duopatellar total knee replacement. The Brigham experience. Orth. Clinic North Am., 12: 89–102, 1982.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scott R, Volatile TB: Twelve years experience with a posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. Cl.Orth., 205: 100–107, 1986.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scott R, Thornhill T.: Posterior cruciate supplementing total knee replacement using onforming inserts and cruciate recession: effect on range of motion and radiolucent lines. Cl.Orth., 309: 146–152, 1994.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stern SH, Insall JN: Posterior stabilized prostheses. The results aftger a follow up of nine to twelve years. J. Bone Joint Surgery, 74A: 980–988, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stiehl J.B., Komistek R.D., Dennis D.A., Paxson R.D.: Fluroscopic analysis of kinematics after posterior cruciate retaining knee arthroplasty. J. Bone and Joint Surgery, 77B: 884–889, 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stiehl J.B., Voorhorst P.E., Keblish P., Sorrels R.B.: Comparison of range of motion after posterior criciate ligament retention or sacrifice with a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. Am.J Knee Surgery, 10: 216–220, 1997.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warren P.J., Olanlokun T.K. C.A.G.: Proprioception after total knee arthroplasty. The influence of prosthetic design. Cl. Orth., 297: 182–187, 1994.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Woo SLY, Buckwalter JA: Normal ligament. Structure, function and composition. In Injury and Repair of the Musculoskeletal Soft Tissues, pp.45–101. Edited by American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Park Ridge, Ill, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard S. Laskin
    • 1
  1. 1.Cornell University Medical CollegeNew York

Personalised recommendations