Abstract
BACKGROUND: With a quest to optimize outcomes, there have been significant advancements in modern designs of total knee implants, attempting to mimic the natural knee motion and feel. One such new design reproducing the medial and lateral knee pivot is a dual-pivot (DP) knee. In the present study, we endeavored to compare the performance of the DP knee vis-a-vis an ultracongruent (UC) Knee design. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was performed in a joint replacement center of a tertiary care military hospital. We enrolled 50 patients each in the DP knee group and the UC knee group and assessed knee flexion, patient-reported outcome (new Knee Society Score [nKSS]), patient performance (Delaware Osteoarthritis Profile Score), and function (Forgotten Joint Score [FJS]) at 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The nKSS was similar in the two groups. In the DP group, patients had significantly better improvement in the stair climb test (p = 0.026). In the UC group, timed up and go test was significantly better (p = 0.004). The gain in knee flexion was similar in the two groups: 26.3° ± 23.3° in the DP group and 27.5° ± 27.5° in the UC group (p = 0.930). Return to activity as judged by 2-year FJS was similar in both groups (p = 0.687). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that the DP knee design had similar knee function to the UC knee. The DP knee design had significantly better stair climbing ability, whereas getting up from chair was better in the UC knee design. With comparable patient-reported outcome and possible differences in patient performance in terms of day-to-day activities, any future trial should focus on comparing patient performance.