Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial - TOPKAT: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

David Beard, Andrew Price, Jonathan Cook, Ray Fitzpatrick, Andrew Carr, Marion Campbell, Helen Doll, Helen Campbell, Nigel Arden, Cushla Cooper, Loretta Davies, David Murray, David Beard, Andrew Price, Jonathan Cook, Ray Fitzpatrick, Andrew Carr, Marion Campbell, Helen Doll, Helen Campbell, Nigel Arden, Cushla Cooper, Loretta Davies, David Murray

Abstract

Background: In the majority of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee the disease originates in the medial compartment. There are two fundamentally different approaches to knee replacement for patients with unicompartmental disease: some surgeons feel that it is always best to replace both the knee compartments with a total knee replacement (TKR); whereas others feel it is best to replace just the damaged component of the knee using a partial or unicompartment replacement (UKR). Both interventions are established and well-documented procedures. Little evidence exists to prove the clinical and cost-effectiveness of either management option. This provides an explanation for the high variation in treatment of choice by individual surgeons for the same knee pathology.The aim of the TOPKAT study will be to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of TKRs compared to UKRs in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis.

Methods/design: The design of the study is a single layer multicentre superiority type randomised controlled trial of unilateral knee replacement patients. Blinding will not be possible as the surgical scars for each procedure differ.We aim to recruit 500 patients from approximately 28 secondary care orthopaedic units from across the UK including district general and teaching hospitals. Participants will be randomised to either UKR or TKR. Randomisation will occur using a web-based randomisation system. The study is pragmatic in terms of implant selection for the knee replacement operation. Participants will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score, which will be collected via questionnaires at 2 months, 1 year and then annually to 5 years. Secondary outcomes will include cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction and complications data.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01352247.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort study flow chart.

References

    1. White SH, Ludkowski PF, Goodfellow JW. Anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73:582–586.
    1. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Welch V, Gee TL, Bourne R, Wells GA. Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;2 CD005321.
    1. Brouwer RW, van Raaij TM, Jakma TT, Verhagen AP, Verhaar JAN, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA. Braces and orthoses for treating osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;1 CD004020.
    1. Fransen M, McConnell S. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;4 CD004376.
    1. Brouwer RW, Jakma TS, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Verhagen AP, Verhaar J. Osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3 CD004019.
    1. Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Shah NA. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:862–865. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B5.8835.
    1. Cameron HU, Jung YB. A comparison of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement. Orthop Rev. 1988;17:983–988.
    1. Beard DJ, Holt MD, Mullins MM, Malek S, Massa E, Price AJ. Decision making For knee replacement: variation In treatment choice for late stage medial compartment osteoarthritis. Knee. 2012;19:886–889. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.05.005.
    1. Weale AE, Murray DW, Baines J, Newman JH. Radiological changes five years after unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82:996–1000. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.82B7.10466.
    1. Khan OH, Davies H, Newman JH, Weale AE. Radiological changes ten years after St. Georg Sled unicompartmental knee replacement. Knee. 2004;11:403–407. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.07.003.
    1. Pearse AJ, Hooper GJ, Rothwell A, Frampton C. Survival and functional outcome after revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee replacement: the New Zealand National Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:508–512. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00530.
    1. Baker PN, Petheram T, Jameson SS, Avery PJ, Reed MR, Gregg PJ. Deehan: Comparison of patient reportd outcome measures following total and unicondylar knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:919–927. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01930.
    1. Price AJ, Webb J, Topf H, Dodd CA, Goodfellow JW, Murray DW. Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:970–976. doi: 10.1054/arth.2001.25552.
    1. Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K, Berend ME, Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Della Valle CJ. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:86–90. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.03.022.
    1. Hassaballa MA, Porteous AJ, Newman JH. Observed kneeling ability after total, unicompartmental and patellofemoral knee arthroplasty: perception versus reality. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004;12:136–139. doi: 10.1007/s00167-003-0376-5.
    1. Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. Knee. 2009;16:473–478. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.04.006.
    1. Newman J, Pydisetty RV, Ackroyd C. Unicompartmental or total knee replacement. The 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:52–57. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00403.
    1. Dennis D, Komistek R, Scuderi G, Argenson JN, Insall J, Mahfouz M, Aubaniac JM, Haas B. In vivo three-dimensional determination of kinematics for subjects with a normal knee or a unicompartmental or total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:104–115.
    1. Isaac SM, Barker KL, Danial IN, Beard DJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Does arthroplasty type influence knee joint proprioception? A longitudinal prospective study comparing total and unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee. 2007;14:212–217. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2007.01.001.
    1. Gill T, Schemitsch EH, Brick GW, Thornhill TS. Revision total knee arthroplasty after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty or high tibial osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;321:10–18.
    1. Padgett DE, Stern SH, Insall JN. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1991;73:186–190.
    1. Saldanha KA, Keys GW, Svard UC, White SH, Rao C. Revision of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty - results of a multicentre study. Knee. 2007;14:275–279. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2007.03.005.
    1. Cameron HU, Park YS. Total knee replacement following high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee. Orthopedics. 1996;19:807–808.
    1. Jackson M, Sarangi PP, Newman JH. Revision total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of outcome following primary proximal tibial osteotomy or unicompartmental arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:539–542. doi: 10.1016/0883-5403(94)90102-3.
    1. Johnson S, Jones P, Newman JH. The survivorship and results of total knee replacements converted from unicompartmental knee replacements. Knee. 2007;14:154–157. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2006.11.012.
    1. Levine WN, Ozuna RM, Scott RD, Thornhill TS. Conversion of failed modern unicompartmental arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:797–801. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80179-3.
    1. Myers TG, Cui Q, Kuskowski M, Mihalko WM, Saleh KJ. Outcomes of total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for secondary and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;3:76–82.
    1. Fisher DA, Watts M, Davis KE. Implant position in knee surgery: a comparison of minimally invasive, open unicompartmental, and total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;1:2–8.
    1. Jenny JY, Boeri C. Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:1016–1020. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.34524.
    1. Manzotti A, Confalonieri N, Pullen C. Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study. Int Orthop. 2007;31:315–319. doi: 10.1007/s00264-006-0184-x.
    1. Engh GA, Dwyer KA, Hanes CK. Polyethylene wear of metal-backed tibial components in total and unicompartmental knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:9–17.
    1. Weale AE, Murray DW, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE. The length of the patellar tendon after unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:790–795. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.81B5.9590.
    1. Johnston L, MacLennan G, McCormack K, Ramsay C, Walker A, Campbell M, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant A, Gray A, Morris R, Murray D, Rowley D. KAT Trial Group: The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:134–141.
    1. Breeman S, Campbell M, Dakin H, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant A, Gray A, Johnston L, Maclennan G, Morris R, Murray D. KAT Trial Group: Patellar resurfacing in total knee replacement: five-year clinical and economic results of a large randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:1473. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00725.
    1. Amin AK, Patton JT, Cook RE, Gaston M, Brenkel IJ. Unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty?: Results from a matched study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;451:101–106.
    1. Laurencin CT, Zelicof SB, Scott RD, Ewald FC. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. A comparative study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;273:151–156.
    1. Soohoo NF, Sharifi H, Kominski G, Lieberman JR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1975–1982. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00597.
    1. Slover J, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Furnes O, Tomek I, Tosteson A. Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty in elderly low-demand patients. A Markov decision analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2348–2355. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.E.01033.
    1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:63. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859.
    1. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;13:248.
    1. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90195-4.
    1. Talbot S, Hooper G, Stokes A, Zordan R. Use of a new high-activity Arthroplasty score to assess function of young patients with total hip or knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:268–273. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.019.
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
    1. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:262–267. doi: 10.1080/000164700317411852.
    1. Beard DJ, Dawson J, Harris K, Doll H, Murray DW, Carr A, Price AJ. Minimal important change or difference for the Oxford Hip and Knee scores following joint replacement surgery. Toronto: ISAKOS conference proceedings; 2013.
    1. Murray D, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D, Carr A, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee score. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1010–1014. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01152.
    1. Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, Agreiter M, Stockl B. Revision rates after total joint replacement. Cumulaive results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:293–297.
    1. Efron B, Tibshirani R. Bootstrap methods for standard errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical accuracy. Stat Sci. 1986;1:54–77. doi: 10.1214/ss/1177013815.
    1. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:106–108. doi: 10.1192/bjp.187.2.106.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit