Implantable Shock Absorber Provides Superior Pain Relief and Functional Improvement Compared With High Tibial Osteotomy in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Medial Knee Osteoarthritis: A 2-Year Report

David R Diduch, Dennis C Crawford, Anil S Ranawat, Jan Victor, David C Flanigan, David R Diduch, Dennis C Crawford, Anil S Ranawat, Jan Victor, David C Flanigan

Abstract

Objective: Up to 10 million Americans below the age of 65 years have symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) and may not yet be candidates for arthroplasty. In response, a subcutaneous implantable shock absorber (ISA) that unloads the knee has been developed. The safety and effectiveness of ISA treatment were compared against a surgical unloading control, high tibial osteotomy (HTO).

Design: This was a prospective open-label cohort study with a historical control arm. Subjects underwent ISA placement or HTO. The primary endpoint was a composite variable combining pain, function, specific adverse events, integrity of implant or hardware, and conversion to subsequent surgery. Pain and function outcomes (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores) were assessed through 24 months. Adverse events were tracked.

Results: The primary endpoint demonstrated superiority of the ISA arm versus the HTO arm, with 85.6% of ISA subjects meeting all criteria compared with 65.5% of HTO subjects. In addition, all 5 secondary endpoints showed superiority of ISA over HTO. At 24 months, the proportions of subjects considered responders were 95.8% (ISA) versus 87.9% (HTO) for pain and 91.7% (ISA) versus 81.3% (HTO) for function. The ISA procedure was well tolerated, with 13.4 days to full weightbearing status versus 58.0 days for the HTO arm.

Conclusions: Treatment with an ISA demonstrated noninferiority and superiority versus treatment with HTO in subjects aged 25-65 years who had OA of the medial knee. Treatment with ISA has high clinical benefit and is durable through at least 24 months.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03671213 NCT03838978.

Keywords: high tibial osteotomy; knee; osteoarthritis; shock absorber; unloading.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: All authors received institutional support from Moximed regarding this study. In addition, DRD is a consultant for Depuy Synthes and Osteocentric, has received royalties from Smith and Nephew, and has received institutional research support from Zimmer, Aesculap, and Donjoy. ASR is a consultant for Moximed, Enhatch, Conformis, Smith & Nephew, Anika, Bodycad, Xiros, NewClip, Ranfac, Marrow Cellution, and Cervos.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The assembled knee shock absorber (top) and its placement when implanted (bottom).
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Subject disposition for both arms.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Days to full weightbearing in the ISA and HTO arms. Boxplot indicates median (notch) and interquartile range (IQR), with whiskers identifying the highest and lowest data point within 1.5x IQR, and * indicates a statistically significant difference between the arms. ISA = implantable shock absorber; HTO = high tibial osteotomy.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
(A) WOMAC pain ratings decreased in both arms after treatment. Pain scores in the ISA arm (green) were significantly lower than those in the HTO arm (blue) at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 24 months. (B) The percentage of pain improvement at each of the follow-up time points followed a similar trajectory. (C) The proportion of responders (at least 20% improvement from baseline and a change of ≥10 points) was significantly higher in the ISA arm compared with the HTO arm at 6 weeks and 6 months. Marker or bar heights represent means, error bars indicate SD, and * indicates a statistically significant difference between the arms (P < 0.05).
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
(A) WOMAC function ratings decreased in both arms after treatment. Function scores in the ISA arm (green) were significantly lower than those in the HTO arm (blue) at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 24 months. (B) The percentage of pain improvement at each of the follow-up time points followed a similar trajectory. (C) Responder rates were significantly higher in the ISA arm compared with those in the HTO arm at 6 weeks and 3 months. Marker or bar heights represent means, error bars indicate SD, and * indicates a statistically significant difference between the arms (P < 0.05).
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Percentage improvements relative to baseline in function and pain for the ISA and HTO arms at 3 months (A) and 24 months (B). Boxplot indicates median (notch) and interquartile range (IQR), with whiskers identifying the highest and lowest data point within 1.5x IQR, and * indicates a statistically significant difference between the arms.

References

    1. Cui A, Li H, Wang D, Zhong J, Chen Y, Lu H. Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies. Eclinicalmedicine. 2020;29-30:100587. doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100587.
    1. Losina E, Weinstein AM, Reichmann WM, Burbine SA, Solomon DH, Daigle ME, et al.. Lifetime risk and age at diagnosis of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the US. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013;65(5):703-11. doi:10.1002/acr.21898.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Arthritis in America. CDC. Published November 8, 2018. Accessed June 2,2022. .
    1. Shane Anderson A, Loeser RF. Why is osteoarthritis an age-related disease? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24(1):15-26. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2009.08.006.
    1. Deshpande BR, Katz JN, Solomon DH, Yelin EH, Hunter DJ, Messier SP, et al.. Number of persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the US: impact of race and ethnicity, age, sex, and obesity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016;68(12):1743-50. doi:10.1002/acr.22897.
    1. Mora JC, Przkora R, Cruz-Almeida Y. Knee osteoarthritis: pathophysiology and current treatment modalities. J Pain Res. 2018;11:2189-96. doi:10.2147/JPR.S154002.
    1. Crawford DC, Miller LE, Block JE. Conservative management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a flawed strategy? Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2013;5(1):e2. doi:10.4081/or.2013.e2.
    1. Moseley JB, O’Malley K, Petersen NJ, Menke TJ, Brody BA, Kuykendall DH, et al.. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(2):81-8. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa013259.
    1. Peng P, Finlayson R, Lee SH, Bhatia A, eds. Ultrasound for Interventional Pain Management: An Illustrated Procedural Guide. Cham (Switzerland): Springer International Publishing; 2020. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-18371-4.
    1. London NJ, Miller LE, Block JE. Clinical and economic consequences of the treatment gap in knee osteoarthritis management. Med Hypotheses. 2011;76(6):887-92. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2011.02.044.
    1. Slynarski K, Lipinski L. Treating early knee osteoarthritis with the Atlas® unicompartmental knee system in a 26-year-old ex-professional basketball player: a case study. Case Rep Orthop. 2017;2017:5020619. doi:10.1155/2017/5020619.
    1. Slynarski K, Walawski J, Smigielski R, van der Merwe W. Feasibility of the Atlas unicompartmental knee system load absorber in improving pain relief and function in patients needing unloading of the medial compartment of the knee: 1-year follow-up of a prospective, multicenter, single-arm pilot study (PHANTOM High Flex Trial). Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;10:1179544117733446. doi:10.1177/1179544117733446.
    1. Slynarski K, Walawski J, Smigielski R, van der Merwe W. Two-year results of the PHANTOM high flex trial: a single-arm study on the Atlas unicompartmental knee system load absorber in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;12:1179544119877170. doi:10.1177/1179544119877170.
    1. Morgan OJ, Hillstrom HJ, Ranawat A, Fragomen AT, Rozbruch SR, Hillstrom R. Effects of a medial knee unloading implant on tibiofemoral joint mechanics during walking. J Orthop Res. 2019;37(10):2149-56. doi:10.1002/jor.24379.
    1. Bode G, Kloos F, Feucht MJ, Fleischer B, Südkamp N, Niemeyer P, et al.. Comparison of the efficiency of an extra-articular absorber system and high tibial osteotomy for unloading the medial knee compartment: an in vitro study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(12):3695-703. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4358-9.
    1. Wiegant K, van Roermund PM, Intema F, Cotofana S, Eckstein F, Mastbergen SC, et al.. Sustained clinical and structural benefit after joint distraction in the treatment of severe knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21(11):1660-7. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2013.08.006.
    1. Parvizi J, Nunley RM, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Jr, Ruh EL, Clohisy JC, et al.. High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):133-7. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3229-7.
    1. Meehan JP, Danielsen B, Kim SH, Jamali AA, White RH. Younger age is associated with a higher risk of early periprosthetic joint infection and aseptic mechanical failure after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(7):529-35. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00545.
    1. Niinimäki TT, Murray DW, Partanen J, Pajala A, Leppilahti JI. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties implanted for osteoarthritis with partial loss of joint space have high re-operation rates. Knee. 2011;18(6):432-5. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2010.08.004.
    1. Amendola A, Bonasia DE. Results of high tibial osteotomy: review of the literature. Int Orthop. 2010;34(2):155-60. doi:10.1007/s00264-009-0889-8.
    1. Lee DC, Byun SJ. High tibial osteotomy. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2012;24(2):61-9. doi:10.5792/ksrr.2012.24.2.61.
    1. Ollivier B, Berger P, Depuydt C, Vandenneucker H. Good long-term survival and patient-reported outcomes after high tibial osteotomy for medial compartment osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(11):3569-84. doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06262-4.
    1. Virolainen P, Aro HT. High tibial osteotomy for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: a review of the literature and a meta-analysis of follow-up studies. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2004;124(4):258-61. doi:10.1007/s00402-003-0545-5.
    1. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16(4):494-502. doi:10.1136/ard.16.4.494.
    1. WOMAC—AUSCAN—Osteoarthritis Global Index. Accessed March 30, 2022. .
    1. Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-64.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Clinical Data Presentations for Orthopedic Device Applications—Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Published March 19, 2020. Accessed November 2, 2022. .
    1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices. Published November 2013. Accessed November 2, 2022. .
    1. Creaby MW, Wang Y, Bennell KL, Hinman RS, Metcalf BR, Bowles KA, et al.. Dynamic knee loading is related to cartilage defects and tibial plateau bone area in medial knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18(11):1380-5. doi:10.1016/j.joca.2010.08.013.
    1. Becker R, Kopf S, Karlsson J. Loading conditions of the knee: what does it mean? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21(12):2659-60. doi:10.1007/s00167-013-2741-3.
    1. Gomoll AH, Angele P, Condello V, Madonna V, Madry H, Randelli P, et al.. Load distribution in early osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(6):1815-25. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4123-0.
    1. Losina E, Katz JN. Total knee arthroplasty on the rise in younger patients: are we sure that past performance will guarantee future success? Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64(2):339-41. doi:10.1002/art.33371.
    1. Yokoyama M, Nakamura Y, Onishi T, Hirano K, Doi M. Healing period after open high tibial osteotomy and related factors: can we really say that it is long? Springerplus. 2016;5:123. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-1745-0.
    1. Moximed, Inc. Atlas IDE Study Data on File. Hayward (CA): Moximed, Inc.
    1. Lafeber FP, Intema F, Van Roermund PM, Marijnissen AC. Unloading joints to treat osteoarthritis, including joint distraction. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2006;18(5):519-25. doi:10.1097/01.bor.0000240366.54960.a1.
    1. van der Woude JAD, Wiegant K, van Roermund PM, Intema F, Custers RJH, Eckstein F, et al.. Five-year follow-up of knee joint distraction: clinical benefit and cartilaginous tissue repair in an open uncontrolled prospective study. Cartilage. 2017;8(3):263-71. doi:10.1177/1947603516665442.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe