Long term follow-up: retention versus sacrifice of the PCL in total knee arthroplasty

Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a long term follow-up of a randomized controlled clinical tria

Status

Recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Observational

Source

NL-OMON

Registry ID

NL-OMON28686

Enrollment

Registered

2021-09-28

Start date

2021-09-28

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2024-02-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Osteoartrhritis of the Knee

Interventions

None listed

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Patients who participated in the previous randomized controlled trial (registration number: 2007-23; abr number: NL 16071.056.07; NTR 1673)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: - deceased - no known contact address - reasons to believe that the patient is not capable – e.g. because of cognitive reasons - to fill out the questionnaires - revision surgery of the index knee (except for revision of the patella)

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The primary objective is to examine whether there is a difference in the patients perceived outcome score - WOMAC - between a posterior cruciate retaining (PCR) total knee arthroplasty compared with a posterior stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty > 10 years postoperative.	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
The secondary objective is to examine if there is a difference in the long term results (>10 year FU) between the PCR and PS total knee arthroplasty in Range of Motion (ROM), Knee score (physician based outcome), patellofemoral pain, patellofemoral osteoarthritis, health related quality of life, patient satisfaction, complications and survival	—

Contacts

Public ContactRoel Kersten

Martini Ziekenhuis

r.kersten@mzh.nl0613598257

Outcome results