Variation in KOOS JR improvement across total knee implant designs: a cohort study from Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44250Keywords:
Arthroplasty, KneeAbstract
Background and purpose: Arthroplasty registries report revision risk, but patient-reported outcomes may also measure implant performance. We aimed to evaluate (i) change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) across multiple total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs in a regional registry, (ii) the association of patellar resurfacing on the change in PROMs, and (iii) the variation in PROMs change within implants with or without patellar resurfacing.
Methods: This is a cohort of primary TKAs from Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) performed between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2021. The dependent measure was change in KOOS JR. Independent variables were implant name and patellar resurfacing. Multivariate modeling adjusted for patient-level factors. A previous report suggests a change of 23 points in KOOS JR as clinically relevant in achieving acceptable pain/function levels. A clinically relevance ratio (CRR) of those achieving the threshold of 23 points to the overall group was calculated for each implant.
Results: 18 implant designs met the inclusion criteria. There were 51,606 cases with complete preoperative and postoperative KOOS JR matched pairs. There was variation in improvement from preoperative to postoperative unadjusted KOOS JR scores across implant designs (P < 0.001), ranging from 18.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] 16.8–20.6) to 27.0 (CI 24.9–29.2). Patellar resurfacing resulted in greater KOOS JR improvement 1.0 (CI 0.5–1.5, P < 0.001). Of the cases with resurfaced patellae, the CRR was 50.2% (CI 49.7–50.7). For cases without resurfaced patellae, the CRR was 47.2% (CI 45.9–48.5). The association of implant design persisted whether the patella was resurfaced or not, evident in the adjusted mean change in KOOS JR (P < 0.001), ranging from 20.1 (CI 17.6–22.6) to 25.5 (CI 24.3–26.7) for resurfaced and from 17.0 (CI 13.9–20.1) to 23.3 (CI 20.3–26.2) for not resurfaced, and the CRR difference (P < 0.001), ranging from 45.8% (CI 42.5–48.6) to 55.8% (CI 50.4–60.8) for resurfaced and from 37.9% (CI 27.4–44.7) to 51.4% (CI 43.9–56.6) for not resurfaced.
Conclusion: Implant design and patellar resurfacing both show an association with KOOS JR improvement. Variations in implant design persist whether the patella is resurfaced or not. Implant selection and patellar resurfacing may be associated with patient outcomes.
Downloads
References
American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR): 2022 Annual Report. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS); 2022. Available from: https://connect.registryapps.net/hubfs/PDFs%20and%20PPTs/2022%20AJRR%20Annual%20Report.pdf
Hughes R E, Zheng H, Hallstrom B R. 2023 Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) Annual Report. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Available from: https://marcqi.org/dev/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023-MARCQI-ANNUAL-REPORT.pdf
Lee W C, Bin Abd Razak H R, Allen J C, Chong H C, Tan H C A. Achieving minimum clinically important difference in Oxford Knee Score and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary is less likely with single-radius compared with multiradius total knee arthroplasty in Asians. J Knee Surg 2019; 32(3): 227-32. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1641139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1641139
Willburger R E, Oberberg S. Early and mid-term results with the ATTUNE total knee replacement system compared to PFC Sigma: a prospective comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res 2022; 17(1): 509. doi: 10.1186/s13018-022-03397-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-022-03397-7
Clarke C, Pomeroy V, Clark A, Creelman G, Hancock N, Horton S, et al. CAPAbility: comparison of the JOURNEY II Bi-Cruciate Stabilised and GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty in performance and functional ability: protocol of a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2020; 21(1): 222. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-4143-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-4143-4
Rajgopal A, Aggarwal K, Kumar S. A five-year comparative functional and clinical evaluation of two contemporary cruciate-retaining knee implants. Arthroplasty Today 2020; 6(3): 369-77. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.05.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.05.009
Kaptein B L, den Hollander P, Thomassen B, Fiocco M, Nelissen R. A randomized controlled trial comparing tibial migration of the ATTUNE cemented cruciate-retaining knee prosthesis with the PFC-sigma design. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B(9): 1158-66. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2020-0096.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B9.BJJ-2020-0096.R1
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
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):e21.00136. doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-21-00136
Baker P N, Deehan D J, Lees D, Jameson S, Avery P J, Gregg P J, et al. The effect of surgical factors on early patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94(8): 1058-66. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28786
Hughes R E, Hallstrom B R, Zheng T, Kabara J, Igrisan R, Cowen M. Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) Report: 2012–2016. Ann Arbor: Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative; 2017. Available from: https://marcqi.org/FINAL-REPORT-rev-10-28-17.pdf
Hughes R E, Zheng H, Igrisan R M, Cowen M E, Markel D C, Hallstrom B R. The Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative experience: improving the quality of care in Michigan. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100(22): e143. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.18.00239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.18.00239
Hughes R E, Hallstrom B R, Cowen M E, Igrisan R M, Singal B M, Share D A. Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) as a model for regional registries in the United States. Orthop Res Rev 2015; 7: 47-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S82732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S82732
Robertsson O, Mendenhall S, Paxton E W, Inacio M C, Graves S. Challenges in prosthesis classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93(Suppl 3): 72-5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00990
Hughes R E, Zheng H. 2022 MARCQI Annual Report Specifications Document. Available from: www.marcqi.org/marcqi-registry-reports-marcqi-annual-reports/
Roos E M, Lohmander L S. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 64. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-64
Lyman S, Lee Y Y, Franklin P D, Wenjun L I, Cross M B, Padgett D E. Validation of the KOOS, JR: a short-form knee arthroplasty outcomes survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474(6): 1461-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4719-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4719-1
Cowen M E, Zheng H, Hughes R E, Franklin P D, Masini M A, Hallstrom B R. How much perioperative pain and dysfunction underlie the HOOS JR and KOOS JR? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2023; 481: 1800-10. doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000002606 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002606
Lyman S, Lee Y Y, McLawhorn A S, Islam W, MacLean C H. What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476(12): 2432-41. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000456. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000456
Ghoshal S, Harary J, Jay J F, Al-Nassir Z; BWH PROMs Workgroup; Chen A F. Evaluating patient-reported outcome measure collection and attainment of substantial clinical benefit in total joint arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2025; 40(6): 1452-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.11.044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2024.11.044
Orr M N, Klika A K, Gagnier J J, Bhandari M, Piuzzi N S. A call for a standardized approach to reporting patient-reported outcome measures: clinical relevance ratio. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103(22): e91. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00030. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.21.00030
Casals M, Girabent-Farrés M, Carrasco J L. Methodological quality and reporting of generalized linear mixed models in clinical medicine (2000–2012): a systematic review. PLoS One 2014; 9(11): e112653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112653. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112653
Pappas M A, Spindler K P, Hu B, Higuera-Rueda C A, Rothberg M B. Volume and outcomes of joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37(11): 2128-33. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.011
Ingelsrud L H, Wilkinson J M, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, Hallstrom B, Navarro R A, et al. How do patient-reported outcome scores in international hip and knee arthroplasty registries compare? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480(10): 1884-96. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002306
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): 97. doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2470-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2470-y
Keenan O, Brenkel I, Walmsley P. Ten-year results of the press fit condylar Sigma cobalt-chrome total knee replacement. J Knee Surg 2019; 32(3): 222-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1641138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1641138
Scott C E H, Bell K R, Ng R T, MacDonald D J, Patton J T, Burnett R. Excellent 10-year patient-reported outcomes and survival in a single-radius, cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27(4): 1106-15. doi: 10.1007/s00167-018-5179-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5179-9
NJR. National Joint Registry 19th Annual Report 2022. Available from: https://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njr-annual-report-2022/
Eiel E S, Donnelly P, Chen A F, Sloan M. Outcomes and survivorships of total knee arthroplasty comparing resurfaced and unresurfaced patellae. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(7 Suppl 2): S227-S232. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.02.060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.02.060
Robben B J, De Vries A J, Van Steenbergen L N, Nelissen R G H H, Brouwer, R W. 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. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 274-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.13430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.13430
Naveen N B, Deckard E R, Ziemba-Davis M, Hanson L F, Warth L C, Meneghini R M. Patellar tilt does not affect patient reported outcomes after modern total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2022; 34: 167-77. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.11.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2021.11.013
Grela M, Barrett M, Kunutsor S K, Blom A W, Whitehouse M R, Matharu G S. Clinical effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing and selective resurfacing in primary total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional and observational evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23(1): 932. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05877-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-05877-7
Leta T H, Lygre S H, Skredderstuen A, Hallan G, Gjertsen J E, Rokne B, et al. Secondary patella resurfacing in painful non-resurfaced total knee arthroplasties: a study of survival and clinical outcome from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (1994–2011). Int Orthop 2016; 40(4): 715-22. doi: 10.1007/s00264-015-3017-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3017-y
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Eric R Cornish, Huiyong Zheng, David C Markel, Brian R Hallstrom, Richard E Hughes
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
