Clinical Outcome of Medial Pivot Compared With Press-Fit Condylar Sigma Cruciate-Retaining Mobile-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical results, radiographic results, range of knee motion, patient satisfaction, and the survival rate of Medial-Pivot posterior cruciate-substituting, knee prosthesis and a press-fit condylar (PFC) Sigma cruciate-retaining mobile-bearing knee prosthesis in the same patients. Methods One hundred eighty-two patients received Medial-Pivot knee prosthesis in one knee and a PFC Sigma knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. The minimum duration of follow-up was 11 years (range, 11-12.6 years). Results The knees with a Medial-Pivot knee prosthesis had significantly worse results than those with a PFC Sigma knee prosthesis at the final follow-up with regard to the mean postoperative Knee Society knee scores (90 compared with 95 points), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (25 compared with 18 points), and range of knee motion (117° compared with 128°). Patients were more satisfied with PFC Sigma knee prosthesis (93%) than with Medial-Pivot knee prosthesis (75%). Complication rates were significantly higher in the Medial-Pivot knee group (26%) than those in the PFC Sigma knee group (6.5%). Radiographic results and survival rates (99% compared with 99.5%) were similar between the 2 groups. Conclusion Although the long-term fixation and survival rate of both Medial-Pivot and PFC Sigma prostheses were similar, we observed a worse knee score, worse range of knee motion, and patient satisfaction was less in the Medial-Pivot knee group than in the PFC Sigma knee group. Furthermore, complication rate was also higher in the Medial-Pivot knee group than the other group.