{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02857142857142857, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01818181818181818, 'mean_word_length': 4.859315589353612, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Total knee arthroplasty with ultracongruent tibial insert. Two-year follow-up].

INTRODUCTION
There is no single criterion to select a posterior stabilization system for an arthroplasty; the ultracongruent system may avoid the complications observed with the drawer and the post.


OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical and functional status of total knee arthroplasty with the ultracongruent system and compare the results with those published in the international literature.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
A retrospective study was carried out with a descriptive and comparative analysis of the total knee arthroplasties in which the Consensus system was used, to determine the operative time, the range of motion, pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Scale (WOMAC), and the level of satisfaction.


RESULTS
Sixty-six arthroplasties were performed; mean age was 70.58 years; 45.5% were right and 54.5% left; the operative time was 76.84 minutes, the VAS pain score was 2.02, the WOMAC score was 17.11, and the range of motion was 96.5 +/- 14.04. Ninety-two percent of the patients are satisfied with the surgical procedure.


CONCLUSIONS
The prosthesis with the ultracongruent insert is an effective option to relieve pain in patients with knee pathology. The clinical and functional results were similar to those reported with other stabilization systems. The system is well accepted by the patients. It is recommended as an alternative to prevent the possible complications that occur with the drawer and post system.