Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Knee Osteoarthritis | Study protocol

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

Authors: T. Irmola, J. Kangas, A. Eskelinen, M. Niemeläinen, H. Huhtala, V. M. Mattila, T. Moilanen

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

The development of total knee replacement (TKR) implant designs aims to improve outcome regarding pain, function, joint stiffness, instability, patellar problems, and ultimately wear of the implant. Recently, two major orthopaedic implant manufacturers launched a new generation of TKR implants which, according to the manufacturers, provide improved functional outcome. However, the benefits of these new TKR designs claimed by the manufacturers in terms of improved functional outcome still lack scientific documentation. The present randomized controlled trial has been designed to compare three fixed bearing, cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) designs; one of the new personalized TKR design with two conventional TKR designs with the main emphasis being on functional outcome.

Methods

The present study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, single-center intervention trial. A total of 240 patients will be recruited to participate in a parallel-group study at Coxa Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland. We will compare the short-term functional outcome of TKR performed with a novel personalized TKR design (Persona CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) against TKRs performed with two conventional designs (PFC CR, DePuy, Warsaw, IN, USA and Nexgen CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). In total, 80 patients will be randomized in each of the three study arms. The primary outcome in this study is the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), which is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Secondary outcome measures include the Forgotten Joint Score, the 15D, the UCLA activity score, and the VAS pain scale. The results will be analyzed after 2-year follow-up.

Discussion

This paper presents a prospective, randomized, single-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient randomization, PROMs, follow-up, methods of analysis of the material, and publication plan. An important aspect that will be considered in the study will be the economic effects of the novel designs as they are substantially more expensive, and the benefits of the added costs remain unknown. In addition, it is especially important to carry out evaluative studies in independent centers that are not biased by the interests of the manufacturers.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered, November, 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03339557.

Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86(5):963–74. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200405000-00012.CrossRefPubMed

Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, Arendt-Nielsen L, Simonsen O, et al. A randomized controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1597–606. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1505467.CrossRefPubMed

Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, Rathleff MS, 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. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2018;26(9):1170–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2018.04.014.CrossRefPubMed

Räsänen P, Paavolainen P, Sintonen H, Koivisto A, Blom M, Ryynänen O, et al. Effectiveness of hip or knee replacement surgery in terms of quality-adjusted life years and costs. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(1):108–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670610013501.CrossRefPubMed

Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Patton JT, Howie CR. Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(1):115–21. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29835.CrossRefPubMed

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780–5. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200704000-00012.CrossRefPubMed

Bourne R, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):57–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9.CrossRefPubMed

Scott CEH, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg. 2010;92(9):1253–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B9.24394.CrossRef

Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P. What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open. 2012;2(1):e000435. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000435.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Aust Orthopaedic Assoc. National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty 2017 Annual Report; 2017. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27578.08649.CrossRef

11.

National Joint Registry fo England, Wales. NJR 14th annual report 2017; 2017.

12.

Norwegian National Unit on Arthroplasty. Nasjonalt register for Leddproteser annual report. 2017;70(6); doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rec.2016.12.006.CrossRef

13.

New Zealand Orhtopedic Association. The New Zealand joint registry; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcl.2012.08.011.CrossRef

14.

Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Sundberg M, W-Dahl A. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2017. 2017.

15.

Anonymous. ODEP statement. 2015. http://www.odep.org.uk/ODEPProcess/ODEPStatement.aspx. Accessed 11 Dec 2018.

16.

Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM. Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty osteoarthritis and cartilage / OARS. Osteoarthr Res Soc. 2014;22(2):184–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.11.001.CrossRef

17.

Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Simpson AH. R WIs patient reporting of physical function accurate following total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94(11):1506–10. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30081.CrossRef

18.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80(1):63–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859.CrossRef

19.

Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33(5):328–36. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002086.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(8):890–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90195-4.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS. The "forgotten joint" as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(3):430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Thienpont E, Opsomer G, Koninckx A, Houssiau F. Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):48–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.024.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Klit J, Jacobsen S, Rosenlund S, Sonne-Holm S, Troelsen A. Total knee arthroplasty in younger patients evaluated by alternative outcome measures. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(5):912–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.09.035.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Baker PN, Deehan DJ, Lees D, Jameson S, Avery PJ, Gregg PJ, et al. The effect of surgical factors on early patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 2012;94(8):1058–66. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28786.CrossRef

25.

Keurentjes JC, Fiocco M, So-Osman C, Onstenk R, Gemert K-V, Ankie WMM, et al. Patients with severe radiographic osteoarthritis have a better prognosis in physical functioning after hip and knee replacement: a cohort-study. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e59500. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059500.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Berend KR, Lombardi J, Adams JB. Which total knee replacement implant should I pick? Correcting the pathology: the role of knee bearing designs. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11 Suppl A):129–32. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32835.CrossRefPubMed

27.

van der Voort P, Pijls BG, Nouta KA, Valstar ER, Jacobs WCH, Nelissen RG, et al. A systematic review and meta-regression of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee replacement in 41 studies. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(9):1209–16. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B9.30386.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Becker R, Hirschmann M, Karlsson J. Does implant design and surgical technique improve the clinical outcome in total knee arthroplasty? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(8):1716–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3145-8.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Nunley R, Nam D, Berend K, Lombardi A, Dennis D, Della Valle C, et al. New Total knee arthroplasty designs: do young patients notice? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):101–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3713-8.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray DW, Carr AJ, et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(1):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Piepers MJ, van Hove RP, van den Bekerom MPJ, Nolte PA. Do refinements to original designs improve outcome of total knee replacement? A retrospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-9-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Husted H, Troelsen A. Does knee awareness differ between different knee arthroplasty prostheses? A matched, case-control, cross-sectional study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016;17(1):141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1001-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Reito A, Jarvisto A, Jamsen E, Skytta 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1405-8.

34.

Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg. British volume. 2007;89(8):1010–4. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424.CrossRef

35.

Behrend H, Zdravkovic V, Giesinger J, Giesinger K. Factors predicting the forgotten joint score after Total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(9):1927–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.035.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, Husted H, Troelsen A. Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(3):280–5. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2016.1156934.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Alanne S, Roine RP, Räsänen P, Vainiola T, Sintonen H. Estimating the minimum important change in the 15D scores. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(3):599–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0787-4.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Insall JN, Binazzi R, Soudry M, Mestriner LA. Total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(192):13–22.

39.

Hungerford DS, Krackow KA. Total joint arthroplasty of the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;192:23–33.

40.

Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M. Introducing a knee Endoprosthesis model increases risk of early revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(6):1711–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2171-9.CrossRefPubMed

Title: 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
Authors: T. Irmola
J. Kangas
A. Eskelinen
M. Niemeläinen
H. Huhtala
V. M. Mattila
T. Moilanen
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Knee Osteoarthritis
Knee-TEP
Knee-TEP
Knee Osteoarthritis
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2830-7

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

The correlations between the anchor density and the curve correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery

Use of prescription analgesic drugs before and after hip or knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis

Low compartment pressure and myoglobin levels in tibial fractures with suspected acute compartment syndrome

Predictors for outcome in acute lateral epicondylitis

Prevalence of low Back pain among adolescents in relation to the weight of school bags

Surgical outcomes of spinal fusion for osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral fractures in patients with Parkinson’s disease: what is the impact of Parkinson’s disease on surgical outcome?