PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between primary and aseptic revision TKAs using the same posterior-stabilised (PS) prosthesis. The authors hypothesised similar outcomes between both groups for selected patients.METHODS: This retrospective, case-control study assessed 36 patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA compared to a match group of 72 primary TKA. Both groups had the same PS design implant (ANATOMIC®, Amplitude, Valence, France). The International Knee Society (IKS) score, radiological outcomes (postoperative alignment, patellar tilt and radiolucent lines), re-intervention and revision rate were compared between the two groups with a minimum follow-up of 3 years.RESULTS: The final study cohort included 29 patients and 63 patients respectively in the revision and primary group, with a mean follow-up of 49.1months (range 36.1-69). Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in IKS scores between the two groups [169.8 for the revision group and 179.6 for the primary group (p?=?0.09)]. No statistical difference was observed for post-operative satisfaction 86.2% versus 92.1% (p?=?0.46). Between the two groups, there was no difference in mean radiological assessment, including radiolucent lines (p?=?0.7). There was no significant difference for overall implant survivorship 96.5% versus 100% (p?=?0.13) at 36months. CONCLUSION: Similar clinical, radiological and survivorship outcomes were found between rTKA and primary TKA groups using the same PS level of constraint in patients undergoing revision surgery for aseptic indications at 3-year follow-up. Use of PS implants in rTKA for the correct indication suggests this to be a safe approach at least in the medium term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective case-control study.