No difference in 1-year improvement of patient-reported physical functioning and pain between resurfaced and unresurfaced patellae: analysis of 17,224 primary total knee arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.13430Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Knee, Patella, Patient-reported outcome measure, RegistryAbstract
Background and purpose: Whether or not to resurface the patella during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the association between patellar resurfacing and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) improvement 1 year postoperatively in terms of physical functioning and pain following TKA.
Patients and methods: We performed an observational study using the Dutch Arthroplasty Register on prospectively collected PROM data (n = 17,224, years 2014–2019). Preoperative and 1-year PROM pain scores (NRS at rest; during activity) and physical functioning scores (KOOS-PS, OKS) were examined. Stratification was performed for cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) and for the 4 most frequently used TKA implants in the Netherlands (Nexgen, Genesis II, PFC/Sigma, Vanguard) using multivariable linear regression adjusting for age, ASA classification, preoperative general health (EQ VAS), and preoperative PROMs.
Results: 4,525 resurfaced and 12,699 unresurfaced patellae in TKA were analyzed. Overall, no significant difference in 1-year PROM improvement was found between the 2 groups. In CR TKAs, resurfacing resulted in less improvement in KOOS-PS and OKS (adjusted difference between groups (B) –1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.86 to –0.50 and B –0.94, CI –1.57 to –0.31. Fewer improvements for patellar resurfacing in TKA were found for the Genesis TKA on NRS pain at rest (B –0.23, CI–0.40 to –0.06) and Oxford knee score (B –1.61, CI –2.24 to –0.98).
Conclusion: No significant differences were found in 1-year improvement of physical functioning and pain between TKA with resurfaced and unresurfaced patellae.
Downloads
References
Fraser J F, Spangehl M J. International rates of patellar resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty, 2004–2014. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(1): 83-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.010
Robben B J, De Vries A J, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, Nelissen R G H H, Brouwer R W. Rare primary patellar resurfacing does not lead to more secondary patellar resurfacing: analysis of 70,014 primary total knee arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 334-40. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.2078. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.2078
Popovic N, Lemaire R. Anterior knee pain with a posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee prosthesis: the effect of femoral component design. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18(04): 396-400. doi: 10.1016/s0883-5403(03)00059-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00059-7
Spencer S J, Young D, Blyth M J G. Secondary resurfacing of the patella in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2010; 17(3): 187-90. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.08.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2009.08.003
van Jonbergen H-P W, Boeddha A V, van Raaij J J A M. Patient satisfaction and functional outcomes following secondary patellar resurfacing. Orthopedics. 2016; 39(5): e850-6. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20160509-05. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20160509-05
Pakos E E, Ntzani E E, Trikalinos T A. Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87A: 1438-45. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200507000-00004
Teel A J, Esposito J G, Lanting B A, Howard J L, Schemitsch E H. Patellar resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(12): 3124-32. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.019
Pavlou G, Meyer C, Leonidou A, As-Sultany M, West R, Tsiridis E. Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: does design matter? A meta-analysis of 7075 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(14): 1301-9. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00594
Van Steenbergen L N, Denissen G A W, Spooren A, van Rooden S M, van Oosterhout F J, Morrenhof J W, et al. More than 95% completeness of reported procedures in the population based Dutch Arthroplasty Register: external validation of 311890 procedures. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(4): 498-505. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1028307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1028307
Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Previous annual online report of LROI. Available from: https://www.lroi-report.nl/previous-reports/ [Accessed January 28, 2021].
Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Knee PROMS response rate. Available from: https://www.lroi-report.nl/knee/proms/response/ [Accessed August 30, 2022].
Perruccio A V, Lohmander L S, Canizares M, Tennant A, Hawker G A, Conaghan P G, et al. The development of a short measure of physical function for knee OA: KOOS-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS)—an OARSI/OMERACT Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16: 542-50. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.014/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.014
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011; 20(10): 1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
Haverkamp D, Breugem S J M, Sierevelt I N, Blankevoort L, Van Dijk C N. Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford 12-item knee questionnaire for knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2005; 76(3): 347-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470510030814
Barnett A G, van der Pols J C, Dobson A J. Regression to the mean: what is it and how to deal with it. Int J Epidemiol 2005: 34: 215-220. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh299
Baker P N, Petheram T, Dowen D, Jameson S S, Avery P J, Reed M R, et al. Early PROMs following total knee arthroplasty: functional outcome dependent on patella resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(2): 314-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.001
Ranstam J, Kärrholm J, Pulkkinen P, Mäkelä K, Espehaug B, Pedersen A B, et al. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data, II: Guidelines. Acta Orthop 2011; 82(3): 258-67. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2011.588863. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.588863
Van Raaij T M, van der Meij E, de Vries A J, van Raay J J M. Patellar resurfacing does not improve clinical outcome in patients with symptomatic tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis: an RCT study of 40 patients receiving primary cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2021; 34(14): 1503-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1710369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1710369
Deroche E, Batailler C, Swan J, Sappey-Marinier E, Neyret P, Servien E, et al. No difference between resurfaced and non-resurfaced patellae with a modern prosthesis design: a prospective randomized study of 250 total knee arthroplasties. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30(3): 1025-38. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06521-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06521-y
Choi K Y, In Y, Kim M S, Sohn S, Koh I J. Is the patient aware of the difference between resurfaced and nonresurfaced patella after bilateral total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of simultaneous bilateral randomized trials. Knee Surg Relat Res 2022; 34(1): 4. doi: 10.1186/s43019-022-00133-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-022-00133-7
Longo U G, Ciuffreda M, Mannering N, D’Andrea V, Cimmino M, Denaro V. Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(2): 620-32. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.041. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.041
Chen K, Dai X, Li L, Chen Z, Cui H, Lv S. Patellar resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 2021; 16(1): 83. doi: 10.1186/s13018-020-02185-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-020-02185-5
Thiengwittayaporn S, Srungboonmee K , Chiamtrakool B. Resurfacing in a posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty reduces patellar crepitus complication: a randomized, controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(9): 1969-74 . doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.050. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.04.050
Ogawa H, Matsumoto K, Akiyama H. Effect of patellar resurfacing on patellofemoral crepitus in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31(8): 1792-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.023
Karachalios T, Komnos G, Hantes M, Varitimidis S. Evaluating the “patella-friendly” concept in total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 15-year follow-up outcome study comparing constant radius, multiradius cruciate-retaining, and nonanatomical cruciate-retaining implants. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36(8): 2771-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.03.007
Huang Y-F, Gao Y-H, Ding L, Liu B, Liu J-G, Qi X. Influence of femoral implant design modification on anterior knee pain and patellar crepitus in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty without patella resurfacing. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21(1): 364. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03391-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03391-2
Kujala U M, Jaakkola L H, Koskinen S K, Taimela S, Hurme M, Nelimarkka O. Scoring of patellofemoral disorders. Arthroscopy 1993; 9(2): 159-63. doi: 10.1016/s0749-8063(05)80366-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-8063(05)80366-4
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Bart J Robben, Astrid J De Vries, Liza N van Steenbergen, Rob G H H Nelissen, Reinoud W Brouwer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
