Survivorship Comparisons of Ultracongruent, Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Tibial Inserts Using a Single Knee System Design: Results From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

<bold>Background: </bold>Ultracongruent (UC) tibial inserts can increase knee replacement stability, but how survivorship compares to cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) inserts is unclear.<bold>Methods: </bold>Data from a large joint registry were used to calculate the cumulative percent revision of a single popular knee design used with different inserts. There were 67,523 procedures, of which 12,434 were UC, 21,635 CR, and 33,454 PS. Revision rates and reasons for revision were analyzed.<bold>Results: </bold>The cumulative percent revision at 18 years was 8.3% for UC, 9.2% for CR, and 8.9% for PS. There was no difference when UC was compared to CR, but PS had a higher risk of revision. Revision reasons were similar.<bold>Conclusion: </bold>Compared to the CR, an UC insert did not increase revision rates and was actually lower than a PS insert. An UC insert does not compromise long-term total knee arthroplasty survivorship in the Genesis II prosthesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]