Background The use of a highly conforming, anteriorstabilized bearing has been associated with clinical success in a limited number of studies. Questions/purposes We compared Knee Society scores, radiographic results, complication rates, and revision rates with the use of anterior-stabilized bearings compared with cruciate-retaining (CR) bearings. Methods A series of 382 patients with 468 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) between 2003 and 2008 with minimum 2-year followup were reviewed. Anterior-stabilized bearings comprised 49% (n = 228) of the sample and CR bearings consisted of 51% (n = 240). The decision to use an anterior-stabilized bearing was based on integrity of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) intraoperatively or after sacrifice of the PCL to achieve soft tissue balance. The tibial and femoral component designs were the same regardless of bearing choice. Outcomes were measured with Knee Society scores, complications, revision TKA, and survival.Radiographs were analyzed for component alignment and evidence of loosening. Results There was no difference in Knee Society knee scores, radiographic alignment, component loosening, manipulation rate, major complications, or time to revision for patients between the two groups. However, the CR group had significantly more revisions than the anteriorstabilized group (21 CR [1.5%] versus seven anteriorstabilized [4.6%], p = 0.03) at a minimum followup of 5 months (mean, 42 months; range, 5-181 months). Conclusions The use of a highly congruent anteriorstabilized bearing for PCL substitution has comparable clinical and radiographic results to traditional CR TKA. These results suggest that this approach is an effective method to achieve stability without the PCL in primary TKA. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The stiffest construct for external fixation of a knee dislocation was achieved when pins were placed anterior lateral on the femur and two connecting rods were used. A stiffer construct may provide a better clinical outcome and we therefore recommend this frame configuration.