Patient-reported outcomes and complications of a new-generation total knee system: a randomized controlled trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43004Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Implants, Knee, Osteoarthrosis, Patient reported outcomesAbstract
Background and purpose: Documentation of new-generation implants’ short-term performance could reassure surgeons and patients about their use, while awaiting the long-term outcome. Our aim was to compare the performance of a newer total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system with its predecessor, measured by patient-reported knee function, pain, and complication rate.
Methods: We performed a multi-center, randomized, controlled trial (clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03073941). 314 patients with primary osteoarthritis were randomized to treatment with a Persona or NexGen cruciate-retaining TKA system and followed for 2 years. The primary outcome was measured with the patient-reported outcome (PRO) Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 2 years post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were the OKS-Activity and Participation questionnaire (OKS-APQ), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), EQ-5D-3L, and number of complications during the study period. Responder analyses were performed using Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and Minimal Important Change (MIC) criteria.
Results: Primary outcome was available from 289 patients (92%). We found no difference in adjusted mean OKS between the groups 2 years post-surgery (0.1, 95% confidence interval –1.4 to 1.7). We found no significant differences in adjusted mean of secondary PROs, PRO time-weighted averages, proportion of patients with PASS or MIC, or complications 2 years post-surgery.
Conclusion: We found no difference in OKS 2 years post-surgery, or in any secondary variables analyzed including complications, between the 2 TKA systems. Short-term safety and performance of the Persona TKA was comparable to its predecessor
Downloads
References
Price A J, Alvand A, Troelsen A, Katz J N, Hooper G, Gray A, et al. Knee replacement. Lancet 2018; 392(10158): 1672-82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32344-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32344-4
DeFrance M J, Scuderi G R. Are 20% of patients actually dissatisfied following total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(3): 594-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.011
Anand R, Graves S E, de Steiger R N, Davidson D C, Ryan P, Miller L N, et al. What is the benefit of introducing new hip and knee prostheses? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 Suppl 3: 51-4. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00867. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00867
Gagliardi A R, Ducey A, Lehoux P, Ross S, Trbovich P, Easty A, et al. Meta-review of the quantity and quality of evidence for knee arthroplasty devices. PLoS One 2016; 11(10): 1-11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163032. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163032
Beckmann J, Meier M K, Benignus C, Hecker A, Thienpont E. Contemporary knee arthroplasty: one fits all or time for diversity? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141(12): 2185-94. doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04042-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04042-4
Omari A, Troelsen A, Husted H, Nielsen C S, Gromov K. Early clinical outcome and learning curve following unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty after introduction of a novel total knee arthroplasty system. World J Orthop 2020; 11(10): 431-41. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v11.i10.431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v11.i10.431
Yang J, Nahhas C R, Salzano M B, Ruzich G P, Jacobs J J, Paprosky W G, et al. Early outcomes of a modern cemented total knee arthroplasty: is tibial loosening a concern? Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B(7): 51-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1972.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B6.BJJ-2020-1972.R1
Christensson A, Tveit M, Kesteris U, Flivik G. Similar migration for medial congruent and cruciate-retaining tibial components in an anatomic TKA system: a randomized controlled trial of 60 patients followed with RSA for 2 years. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 68-74. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1983709 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1983709
Mathijssen N M C, Verburg H, London N J, Landsiedl M, Dominkus M. Patient reported outcomes and implant survivorship after total knee arthroplasty with the persona knee implant system: two year follow up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20(1): 1-9. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2470-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2470-y
Halawi M J, Jongbloed W, Baron S, Savoy L, Williams V J, Cote M P. Patient dissatisfaction after primary total joint arthroplasty: the patient perspective. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(6): 1093-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.075. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.075
Calvert M, Blazeby J, Altman D G, Revicki D A, Moher D, Brundage M D. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA 2013; 309(8): 814-22. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.879. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.879
Lindberg-Larsen M, Varnum C, Jakobsen T, Andersen M R, Sperling K, Overgaard S, et al. Study protocol for discharge on day of surgery after hip and knee arthroplasty from the Center for Fast-track Hip and Knee Replacement. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 121-7. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11636. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.11636
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.80B1.0800063
Harris K, Dawson J, Gibbons E, Lim C, Beard D, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Relat Outcome Meas 2016; 7: 101-8. doi: 10.2147/prom.s97774. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S97774
Dawson J, Beard D J, McKibbin H, Harris K, Jenkinson C, Price A J. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of activity and participation (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B(3): 332-8. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.96b3.32845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B3.32845
Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger J M, Kuster M S. The “Forgotten Joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(3): 430-6.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035
EuroQOL group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (New York) 1990; 16(3): 199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9
Wittrup-Jensen K U, Lauridsen J, Pedersen K M, Gudex C. Generation of a Danish TTO value set for EQ-5D health states. Scand J Public Health 2009; 37(5): 459-66. doi: 10.1177/1403494809105287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494809105287
Odgaard A, Kappel A, Madsen F, Kristensen P W, Stephensen S, Attarzadeh A P. No clinically important differences between patellofemoral arthroplasty and TKA in range of motion or patient-reported outcomes after 6 years: a randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480(9): 1707-18. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002178
Ingelsrud L H, Terluin B, Gromov K, Price A, Beard D, Troelsen A. Which Oxford Knee Score level represents a satisfactory symptom state after undergoing a total knee replacement? Acta Orthop 2021; 92(1): 85-90. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1832304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1832304
Ingelsrud L H, Roos E M, Terluin B, Gromov K, Husted H, Troelsen A. Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement. Acta Orthop 2018; 89(5): 541-7. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1480739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1480739
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
Murray D W, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D J, Carr A J, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg B 2007; 89(8): 1010-14. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424
Haddad B I, Tarazi A, Alzoubi R, Alqawasmi M S, Ammar A, Kalare Z. Symmetric versus asymmetric tibial components: a systematic review of comparative studies. J Orthop Surg Res 2024; 19(1): 756. doi: 10.1186/s13018-024-05256-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-024-05256-z
Mørup-Petersen A, Krogsgaard M R, Laursen M, Madsen F, Winther-Jensen M, Odgaard A. Patients in high- and low-revision hospitals have similar outcomes after primary knee arthroplasty: 1-year postoperative results from the Danish prospective multicenter cohort study, SPARK. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2023; 31(8): 3487-99. doi: 10.1007/s00167-023-07390-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07390-3
Irmola T, Reito A, Kangas J, Eskelinen A. Assessment of improvement in functional outcomes between a novel knee replacement design and conventional designs in 240 patients: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Orthop 2025; 96: 127-34. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.42708. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.42708
Behrend H, Zdravkovic V, Bösch M, Hochreiter B. No difference in joint awareness after TKA: a matched-pair analysis of a classic implant and its evolutional design. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27(7): 2124-9. doi: 10.1007/s00167-019-05407-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05407-4
Hamilton W G, Brenkel I J, Barnett S L, Allen P W, Dwyer K A, Lesko J P, et al. Comparison of existing and new total knee arthroplasty implant systems from the same manufacturer: a prospective, multicenter study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2021; 5(12): 1-11. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00136
Panchani S K, Divecha H M, Lafferty R, Pavlou G, Oakley J, Shaw D, et al. Early functional outcomes after evolutionary total knee arthroplasty. JBJS Open Access 2021; 6(3): e21.00016. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.oa.21.00016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.21.00016
Dansk Knæalloplastikregister (Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry). Annual Report 2023. Available from: https://rkkp-data.dk/aarsrapporter/dkr/DKR Årsrapport 2023.pdf
Nasjonalt kvalitets- og kompetansenettverk for leddproteser og hoftebrudd. Annual Report 2024. Vol. 4. Available from: https://www.helse-bergen.no/49fbf9/contentassets/227cba5a5f094ba1bc08d780f667b86d/rapport2024.pdf
Swedish Arthroplasty Registry. Annual Report 2024. Available from: https://registercentrum.blob.core.windows.net/slr/r/-rsrapport-2024-Svenska-Ledprotesregistret-Ze531aeCZ.pdf
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Kristian R L Mortensen, Lina H Ingelsrud, Anders Odgaard, Andreas Kappel, Claus Varnum, Henrik Schrøder, Kirill Gromov, Anders Troelsen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PlumX (by Elsevier) is an altmetrics platform that tracks and visualizes the online attention, usage, captures, citations, and social media engagement.
