Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 27, 2025

The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
The impact of posterior-stabilized vs. constrained polyethylene liners in revision total knee arthroplasty
Ittai Shichman1,2, Christian T Oakley1, Geidily Beaton1
1Division of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA.
Aim:
Posterior stabilized (PS) and varus valgus constrained (VVC) knee polyethylene liners have been shown to confer excellent long-term functional results following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent rTKA using either a PS or VVC liner.
Methods:
A retrospective comparative study of 314 rTKA with either PS or VVC liner and a minimum follow-up time of two years was conducted. Patient demographics, complications, readmissions, and re-revision etiology and rates were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed to estimate freedom from all-cause revision.
Results:
Hospital LOS (3.41 ± 2.49 vs. 3.34 ± 1.93 days, p = 0.793) and discharge disposition (p = 0.418) did not significantly differ between groups. At a mean follow-up of 3.55 ± 1.60 years, the proportion of patients undergoing re-revision did not significantly differ (19.1% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.929). In subgroup analysis of re-revision causes, the VVC cohort had superior survival from re-revision due to instability compared to the PS cohort (97.8% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.003). Freedom from re-revision due to aseptic loosening did not significantly differ between groups (85.2% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.436). Improvements in range of motion (ROM) from preoperative to latest follow-up were similar as well.
Conclusions:
PS and VVC liners confer similar survivorship, complication rates, and overall knee ROM in rTKA. VVC liners were not associated with increased postoperative aseptic loosening and demonstrated superior freedom from re-revision due to instability. Future studies with longer follow-up are warranted to better determine significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two bearing options.
Level Iii Evidence:
Retrospective Cohort Study.

