Comparison of Existing and New Total Knee Arthroplasty Implant Systems From the Same Manufacturer: A Prospective, Multicenter Study

William G Hamilton, Ivan J Brenkel, Steven L Barnett, Paul W Allen, Kimberly A Dwyer, James P Lesko, Stephen R Kantor, Mark G Clatworthy, William G Hamilton, Ivan J Brenkel, Steven L Barnett, Paul W Allen, Kimberly A Dwyer, James P Lesko, Stephen R Kantor, Mark G Clatworthy

Abstract

Introduction: This study evaluated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes for an Existing-TKA versus New-TKA from the same manufacturer.

Methods: TKA outcomes for 752 with Existing-TKA versus 1129 subjects with New-TKA were followed through 2 years using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Responders were assessed per Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship was estimated. Radiographs had an independent radiographic review.

Results: Two-year follow-up was 84.6% (636/752) for Existing-TKA and 82.5% (931/1129) for New-TKA. Two-year PROMs mean outcomes for New-TKA versus Existing-TKA at 2 years were: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (ADL: 89.0 versus 86.8, P = 0.005; pain: 88.9 versus 87.1, P = 0.019; symptoms: 84.1 versus 82.2, P = 0.017; Sport/Rec: 63.9 versus 58.8, P = 0.001; and QOL: 77.0 versus 73.5, P = 0.003), Patient's Knee Implant Performance (overall: 76.5 versus 73.5, P = 0.003; confidence: 8.4 versus 8.1, P = 0.004; stability: 8.6 versus 8.3, P = 0.006; satisfaction: 8.3 versus 8.1, P = 0.042; and modifying activities: 6.6 versus 6.4, P = 0.334), Oxford Knee Score (41.9 versus 41.1, P = 0.027), and EQ5D-3L (0.88 versus 0.88, P = 0.737). Two-year responder rates using WOMAC were 93.9% versus 90.6% (P = 0.018) for New-TKA versus Existing-TKA. Independent radiographic review showed that tibial and femoral radiolucencies ≥2 mm were similar (P ≥ 0.05) or favored New-TKA. Implant survivorship was similar between groups (log-rank P = 0.9994).

Discussion: New-TKA versus Existing-TKA demonstrated slightly better PROMs with similar radiographic and implant survivorship outcomes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01497730 NCT01746524.

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

References

    1. Health Quality Improvement Partnership: National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 15th Annual Report; October 2018.
    1. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR): Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2018 Annual Report. Adelaide, AOA, 2018.
    1. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ: Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: Who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:57-63.
    1. Chesworth BM, Mahomed NN, Bourne RB, Davis AM; OJRR Study Group: Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR/TKR surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:907-918.
    1. Lim JB, Chou AC, Yeo W, et al. : Comparison of patient quality of life scores and satisfaction after common orthopedic surgical interventions. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2015;25:1007-1012.
    1. Baker PN, Rushton S, Jameson SS, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan DJ: Patient satisfaction with total knee replacement cannot be predicted from pre-operative variables alone: A cohort study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Jt J 2013;95-B:1359-1365.
    1. Bourne RB, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K: Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA: Is there a difference? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:542-546.
    1. Gandhi R, Davey JR, Mahomed NN: Predicting patient dissatisfaction following joint replacement surgery. J Rheumatol 2008;35:2415-2418.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Toksvig-Larsen S, Roos EM: Knee arthroplasty: Are patients' expectations fulfilled? A prospective study of pain and function in 102 patients with 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 2009;80:55-61.
    1. Lau RL, Gandhi R, Mahomed S, Mahomed N: Patient satisfaction after total knee and hip arthroplasty. Clin Geriatr Med 2012;28:349-365.
    1. Callaghan JJ, Johnston RC, Pedersen DR: The John Charnley award. Practice surveillance: A practical method to assess outcome and to perform clinical research. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;369:25-38.
    1. Whittaker JP, Dwyer KA, Howard J, et al. : Learning curve with a new primary total knee arthroplasty implant: A multicenter perspective with more than 2000 patients. Arthroplast Today 2018;4:348-353.
    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.
    1. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:17.
    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;80:63-69.
    1. Lewis S, Price M, Dwyer KA, et al. : Development of a scale to assess performance following primary total knee arthroplasty. Value Health 2014;17:350-359.
    1. Coles TM, Dwyer KA, Mordin M, et al. : Psychometric evaluation of the patient's knee implant performance (PKIP) questionnaire for the assessment of primary total knee arthroplasty. Value Health 2014;17:A568.
    1. Brooks R: EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53-72.
    1. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN: Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:13-14.
    1. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, et al. : Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:20-32.
    1. Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN: The new knee society knee scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470:3-19.
    1. Escobar A, Gonzalez M, Quintana JM, et al. : Patient acceptable symptom state and OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria in joint replacement. Identification of cut-off values. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012;20:87-92.
    1. Petursson G, Fenstad AM, Gøthesen Ø, et al. : Computer-assisted compared with Conventional total knee replacement: A multicenter parallel-group randomized Controlled trial. J Bone Jt Surg Am 2018;100:1265-1274.
    1. Ewald FC: The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:9-12.
    1. Amin A, Al-Taiar A, Sanghrajka AP, Kang N, Scott G: The early radiological follow-up of a medial rotational design of total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2008;15:222-226.
    1. Bach CM, Biedermann R, Goebel G, Mayer E, Rachbauer F: Reproducible assessment of radiolucent lines in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;434:183-188.
    1. Shan L, Shan B, Suzuki A, Nouh F, Saxena A: Intermediate and long-term quality of life after total knee replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:156-168.
    1. Pennington M, Grieve R, Black N, van der Meulen JH: Cost-effectiveness of five Commonly used prosthesis brands for total knee replacement in the UK: A study using the NJR dataset. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0150074.
    1. The New Zealand Joint Registry Nineteen Year Report: January 1999 to December 2017. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Orthopaedic association, 2018.
    1. Health Quality Improvement Partnership: National joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, 15th Annual Report. Surgical Data to 31 December 2017; 2018.
    1. Hughes R, Zheng H, Hallstrom B: Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) Report: 2012-2017. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 2018.
    1. Kelly M, Cafri G, Kurtz S, Paxton E, Hinman A: Antioxidant Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Rick and Reasons for Short term REVISIONS in a US Registry. Reykjavik, Iceland, June 9-11, 2018. Paper #158.
    1. Kaptein B, den Hollander P, Thomassen B, Nelissen R: An RSA RCT comparing two cemented knee designs. Adeilade, Australia; Presented at the 5th International RSA Meeting, October 6-8, 2017.
    1. Turgeon TR, Gascoyne TC, Laende EK, Dunbar MJ, Bohm ER, Richardson CG: The assessment of the stability of the tibial component of a novel knee arthroplasty system using radiostereometric analysis. Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1579-1584.
    1. Toomey S, Daccach J, Shah J, Himden S, Lesko J, Hamilton W: Incidence of patellofemoral complications with a new TKA system vs. a currently available product in two, worldwide, multi-center, prospective clinical studies. J Arthroplasty 2017;32:S187-S192.
    1. Fifth AJRR Annual Report on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Data: Annual Report 2018. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. American Joint Registry; 2018.
    1. Malchau H, Bragdon CR, Muratoglu OK: The stepwise introduction of innovation into orthopedic surgery: The next level of dilemmas. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:825-831.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever