Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Aug 7;10(3):e25.00136.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.25.00136. eCollection 2025 Jul-Sep.

Cruciate-Retaining Implants Do Not Provide a More Natural Joint Feeling Than Cruciate-Substituting Implants in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yashar Khani  1 , Amir Mehrvar  2 , Sadra Mohebbi  3 , Mohammadhossein Hefzosseheh  4 , Mahya Aliakbari  5 , Fateme Mansouri Rad  6 , Mohammad Poursalehian  7
Affiliations
Review

Cruciate-Retaining Implants Do Not Provide a More Natural Joint Feeling Than Cruciate-Substituting Implants in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yashar Khani et al. JB JS Open Access. .

Abstract

Background: The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a patient-reported outcome measure developed to assess joint awareness, potentially differentiating between "good" and "excellent" outcomes. Prosthetic designs, specifically cruciate-retaining (CR) and cruciate-substituting (cruciate sacrificing/substituting [CS]) implants, may influence joint awareness due to differences in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) preservation. Our objective was to compare the joint awareness outcomes, measured by the FJS, between CR and CS implants in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to March 2024 without date or language restrictions. Studies comparing CR and CS implants reporting FJS outcomes were included. Data extracted included study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention details, follow-up durations, and FJS scores. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Intervention-I tool. A random-effects meta-analysis using Hedges g was performed, with sensitivity analyses and meta-regression to explore heterogeneity.

Results: Seventeen cohort studies involving 4,245 patients were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that CS implants were superior to CR implants in terms of FJS (Hedges g = -0.39; p = 0.018), indicating a small to medium effect size favoring CS designs. High heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 95.69%). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar results, and meta-regression did not identify significant sources of heterogeneity.

Conclusion: CS implants are associated with superior joint awareness compared with CR implants in TKA, as measured by the FJS. Despite the theoretical advantage of PCL preservation, CR implants did not demonstrate better joint awareness. The findings should be interpreted with caution due to study heterogeneity and limitations in study design. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to confirm these results.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The protocol of this study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024553420). Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A866).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk-of-bias assessment using the ROBINS-I. ROBINS-I = Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Intervention.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Meta-analysis and forest plot of FJS in 17 included studies. FJS = Forgotten Joint Score.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Funnel plot.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Wylde V, Dieppe P, Hewlett S, Learmonth ID. Total knee replacement: is it really an effective procedure for all? Knee. 2007;14(6):417-23. - PubMed
    1. Murray DW, MacLennan GS, Breeman S, Dakin HA, Johnston L, Campbell MK, Gray AM, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Morris RW, Grant AM; KAT group. A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the knee arthroplasty trial (kat). Health Technol Assess. 2014;18(19):1-235. vii-viii. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nam D, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Patient dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a growing concern? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-b(11 suppl A):96-100. - PubMed
    1. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):57-63. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bonnin MP, Basiglini L, Archbold HA. What are the factors of residual pain after uncomplicated tka? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(9):1411-7. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources