<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Lutzner J</submitter><funding>Technische Universität Dresden</funding><funding>Aesculap</funding><pagination>3000-3006</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9418092</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>30(9)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/h4>If substitution of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty is necessary, there are two options available: posterior stabilized (PS) design with a post-cam mechanism or anterior-lipped ultracongruent (UC) inserts. UC inserts have the advantage that no femoral box is necessary and a standard femoral component can be used. The aim of this study was to compare the range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) after UC and PS fixed-bearing TKA. Better ROM in PS TKA and no difference in PRO between both designs was hypothesized.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A randomized controlled trial with 127 patients receiving a fixed-bearing UC or PS design of the same knee system was performed. Nine patients died and there were four revision surgeries. 107 patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome was assessed. Patellofemoral problems were evaluated using selected applicable questions of the Oxford Knee Score (getting up from a table, kneeling, climbing stairs).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Surgical time was 10 min shorter in the UC group (p &lt; 0.001). After 5 years, both groups demonstrated good knee function and health-related quality of life without significant differences between the groups. Both groups demonstrated a high satisfaction score and the majority of patients would undergo this surgery again. Patellofemoral problems were recognized more frequently in the PS group (p = 0.025).&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>Both designs demonstrated similar good results after 5 years. Stabilization with an anterior-lipped UC insert can be considered a safe alternative to the well-established PS design if cruciate substitution is necessary.&lt;h4>Level of evidence: 1&lt;/h4></pubmed_abstract><journal>Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA</journal><pubmed_title>Ultracongruent insert design is a safe alternative to posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: 5-year results of a randomized controlled trial.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9418092</pmcid><funding_grant_id>STEADINESS</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Beyer F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lutzner C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Riedel R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tille E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lutzner J</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Ultracongruent insert design is a safe alternative to posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: 5-year results of a randomized controlled trial.</name><description>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/h4>If substitution of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty is necessary, there are two options available: posterior stabilized (PS) design with a post-cam mechanism or anterior-lipped ultracongruent (UC) inserts. UC inserts have the advantage that no femoral box is necessary and a standard femoral component can be used. The aim of this study was to compare the range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcome (PRO) after UC and PS fixed-bearing TKA. Better ROM in PS TKA and no difference in PRO between both designs was hypothesized.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>A randomized controlled trial with 127 patients receiving a fixed-bearing UC or PS design of the same knee system was performed. Nine patients died and there were four revision surgeries. 107 patients completed the 5-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome was assessed. Patellofemoral problems were evaluated using selected applicable questions of the Oxford Knee Score (getting up from a table, kneeling, climbing stairs).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>Surgical time was 10 min shorter in the UC group (p &lt; 0.001). After 5 years, both groups demonstrated good knee function and health-related quality of life without significant differences between the groups. Both groups demonstrated a high satisfaction score and the majority of patients would undergo this surgery again. Patellofemoral problems were recognized more frequently in the PS group (p = 0.025).&lt;h4>Conclusion&lt;/h4>Both designs demonstrated similar good results after 5 years. Stabilization with an anterior-lipped UC insert can be considered a safe alternative to the well-established PS design if cruciate substitution is necessary.&lt;h4>Level of evidence: 1&lt;/h4></description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022 Sep</publication><modification>2025-05-29T16:11:26.953Z</modification><creation>2025-04-06T01:50:19.735Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9418092</accession><cross_references><pubmed>33842984</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s00167-021-06545-4</doi></cross_references></HashMap>