Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 7, 2025

Athymic Rat Model for Evaluation of Engineered Anterior Cruciate Ligament Grafts
Published on: March 26, 2015
Equivalent outcomes of ultra-congruent and standard cruciate-retaining inserts in total knee arthroplasty
Karthik Vishwanathan1, Srinivas B S Kambhampati2, Raju Vaishya3
1Department of Orthopaedics, Parul Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Parul University, Limda, Waghodia, Vadodara, Gujarat, 391760, India. karthik_vishwanathan@yahoo.com.
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.
More Related Videos
08:30Surgical Retrieval, Isolation and In vitro Expansion of Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament-derived Cells for Tissue Engineering Applications
Published on: April 30, 2014
07:33In Vitro Application of a Wireless Sensor in Flexion-Extension Gap Balance of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Published on: May 5, 2023