Assessment of improvement in functional outcomes between a novel knee replacement design and conventional designs in 240 patients: a randomized controlled trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.42708Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Implants, Knee, OsteoarthrosisAbstract
Background and purpose: The introduction and development of new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant designs are industry driven. To date, an adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) to provide evidence of the superiority of novel implant designs over conventional ones is often lacking. The aim of our RCT was to investigate the functional outcomes of a novel TKA implant design compared with 2 conventional TKA designs. Primary outcome was difference in the change in Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 2 years. Secondary outcomes were Forgotten Joint Score, 15D quality of life questionnaire, UCLA activity score, and complications.
Methods: We compared functional outcomes between a novel TKA implant design (Persona CR) and 2 conventional designs (NexGen CR, PFC CR). 240 patients with severe knee osteoarthritis were recruited to a pragmatic, single-center, prospective, parallel-group RCT between September 2015 and August 2018. The duration of follow-up was 2 years.
Results: Of 240 randomized patients, 225 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean age 61.8 years; 67.5% females). The OKS exceeded minimal clinical important difference (MCID) from baseline to 2 years in all 3 treatment groups (Persona CR: 18.9 points, PFC CR: 20.3 points, NexGen CR: 19.4 points). At 2 years the difference between Persona CR and PFC CR in the change score was –1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] –3.6 to 1.7). Similarly, the difference between Persona CR and NexGen CR was –0.9 (CI –3.6 to 1.9). At the time of final follow-up evaluation, OKS was equivalent between groups, as CI excluded between-group differences larger than 4 points.
Conclusion: We showed no clinically relevant differences in functional outcomes measured with OKS, 15D, or FJS between the 2 conventional implant designs and the novel implant design at 2-year follow-up.
Downloads
References
Schroeder L, Dunaway A, Dunaway D. A comparison of clinical outcomes and implant preference of patients with bilateral TKA: one knee with a patient-specific and one knee with an off-the-shelf implant. JBJS Rev 2022; 10(2). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00182
Schwechter E M, Fitz W. Design rationale for customized TKA: a new idea or revisiting the past. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2012; 5(4): 303-8. doi: 10.1007/s12178-012-9143-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-012-9143-x
Victor J, Vermue H. Custom TKA: what to expect and where do we stand today? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141(12): 2195-203. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04038-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04038-0
Irmola T, Ponkilainen V, Mäkelä K T, Robertsson O, W-Dahl A, Furnes O, et al. Association between fixation type and revision risk in total knee arthroplasty patients aged 65 years and older: a cohort study of 265,877 patients from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association 2000–2016. Acta Orthop 2021; 92(1): 90-5. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1837422. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1837422
Niemeläinen M J, Mäkelä K T, Robertsson O, W-Dahl A, Furnes O, Fenstad A M, et al. The effect of fixation type on the survivorship of contemporary total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 65 years of age: a register-based study of 115,177 knees in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) 2000–2016. Acta Orthop 2020; 91(2): 184-90. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1710373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1710373
Carr A J, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price A J, Arden N K, Judge A, et al. Knee replacement. Lancet 2012; 379: 1331-40. doi: 10.1016/S0140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6
Irmola T, Kangas J, Eskelinen A, Niemeläinen M, Huhtala H, Mattila V M, et al. Functional outcome of total knee replacement: a study protocol for a prospective, double-blinded, parallel-group randomized, clinical controlled trial of novel, personalized and conventional implants. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20(1): 443. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2830-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2830-7
Insall J N, Binazzi R, Soudry M, Mestriner L A. Total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; (192): 13-22. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198501000-00003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198501000-00003
Hungerford D S, Krackow K A. Total joint arthroplasty of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 192. doi: 10.1097/00003086-198501000-00004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198501000-00004
Reito A, Järvistö A, Jämsen E, Skyttä E, Remes V, Huhtala H, et al. Translation and validation of the 12-item Oxford knee score for use in Finland. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18(1). doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1405-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1405-8
Murray D W, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D J, Carr A, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Annotation 2007; 89(8): 1010-14. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424
Davies A P. Rating systems for total knee replacement. Vol 9; 2002. Available from: www.womac.org DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(02)00095-9
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 (1): 63-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b1.7859. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859
Jenny J Y, Diesinger Y. The Oxford Knee Score: compared performance before and after knee replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98(4): 409-12. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.004
Beard D J, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D W, Carr A J, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(1): 73-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009
Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med 2001; 33: 328-36. doi: 10.3109/07853890109002086. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002086
Alanne S, Roine R P, Räsänen P, Vainiola T, Sintonen H. Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores. Qual Life Res 2015; 24(3): 599-606. doi: 10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4
Mørup-Petersen A, Skou S T, Holm C E, Holm P M, Varnum C, Krogsgaard M R, et al. Measurement properties of UCLA Activity Scale for hip and knee arthroplasty patients and translation and cultural adaptation into Danish. Acta Orthop 2021; 92(6): 681-8. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1977533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1977533
Rosinsky P J, Chen J W, Lall A C, Shapira J, Maldonado D R, Domb B G. Can we help patients forget their joint? Determining a threshold for successful outcome for the Forgotten Joint Score. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35(1): 153-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.08.014
Holtz N, Hamilton D F, Giesinger J M, Jost B, Giesinger K. Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21(1). doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03415-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03415-x
Keiller T, Saari T, Sharegi B, Kärrholm J. No difference in clinical outcome but in RSA in total knee arthroplasty with the ATTUNE vs. the PFC Sigma: a randomized trial with 2-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 560-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.24577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.24577
W-Dahl A, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Nåtman J, Bulow E, Arani P I, et al. The Swedish Arthroplasty Register annual report; 2023. Available from: https://sar.registercentrum.se/
Lewis P L, Gill D R, McAuliffe M J, McDougall C, Stoney J D, Vertullo C J, et al. Hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty: 2024 annual report; 2024. doi: 10.25310/GLOL7776. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25310/GLOL7776
Achakri H, Bridgens J, Brittain R, Curran P, Wilton T, Coward G, et al. National Joint Registry: 21st Annual Report NJR Statistical Analysis, Support and Associated Services. Available from: www.njrcentre.org.uk
Kahlenberg C A, Lyman S, Joseph A D, Chiu Y F, Padgett D E. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes based on implant brand in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J 2019; 101-B(7_Supple_C): 48-54. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1382.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1382.R1
Baas D C, van Aalderen-Wichers J C, van der Goot T H, Verhagen R J. The effect of pain neuroscience education on chronic postsurgical pain after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 485-91. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.41346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.41346
Skou S T, Roos E M, Laursen M B, Rathleff M S, Arendt-Nielsen L, Rasmussen S, et al. Total knee replacement and non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis: 2-year outcome from two parallel randomized controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018; 26(9). doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.04.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.04.014
Yang J, Heckmann N D, Nahhas C R, Salzano M B, Ruzich G P, Jacobs J J, et al. Early outcomes of a modern cemented total knee arthroplasty is tibial loosening a concern? Bone Joint J 2021; 103(6): 51-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1972.R1
Jaeger S, Eissler M, Schwarze M, Schonhoff M, Kretzer J P, Bitsch R G. Technical Note: Early tibial loosening of the cemented ATTUNE knee arthroplasty: just a question of design? Knee 2021; 30: 170-5. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.01.003.´ DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2021.01.003
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Tero Irmola, Aleksi Reito, Jarmo Kangas, Antti Eskelinen, Mika Niemeläinen, Ville M Mattila, Teemu Moilanen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
