Equivalent outcomes of ultra‐congruent and standard cruciate‐retaining inserts in total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE: No systematic review has compared the clinical outcome of anterior stabilized ultra-congruent and standard cruciate-retaining inserts in fixed-bearing primary total knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to compare the outcomes and establish the superiority or equivalence of these inserts. METHODS: Pubmed, EMBASE, Medline, AMED, ERIC, and Proquest databases were searched electronically. PRISMA guidelines were followed in the conduct of the study. The clinical outcomes compared in the meta-analysis were overall knee score, WOMAC, score for knee function, score for knee pain, SF-12 PCS, knee flexion, manipulation under anaesthesia for postoperative knee stiffness, revision total knee arthroplasty or change of polyethylene insert for post-operative instability (relative risk [RR]) and survivorship. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and the Modified Jadad scale. RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 9989 knees (three RCTs and 11 comparative case-cohort studies) were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The pooled analysis of the ultracongruent insert and the standard cruciate retaining insert was based on a cohort of 2860 and 7129 TKA, respectively. Knee pain was significantly better in patients that had standard inserts (p = 0.02; 95% CI - 1.06 to - 0.10), and the physical component of health-related quality of life was also significantly better in patients that had standard inserts (p = 0.02; 95% CI - 6.43 to - 0.64). There was a 72% lesser chance of revision TKA or change of insert for postoperative instability in knees that had been implanted with ultracongruent inserts (RR = 0.28; p = 0.0002; 95% CI 0.15-0.55). There was no difference in the otheroutcome measures. There was no significant difference between the two inserts, considering the minimal clinically important difference or absolute ratio. CONCLUSION: Differences observed between the two types of inserts were not clinically significant. Therefore, based on current evidence, arthroplasty surgeons can use either of these inserts with cruciate-retaining knee prosthesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level II.