Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 7/2019

01-07-2019 | KNEE

Similar postoperative patient-reported outcome in both second generation patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty for treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Authors: Kristine Ifigenia Bunyoz, Sébastien Lustig, Anders Troelsen

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 7/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

Due to inconsistent results and high failure rates, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is more often used to treat isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) despite the theoretical advantage of patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA). It is perceived that second-generation PFA may have improved the outcomes of surgery. In this systematic review, the primary aim was to compare outcomes of second-generation PFA and TKA by assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

A systematic search was made in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and MeSH to identify studies using second-generation PFA implants or TKA for treatment of PFOA. Only studies using The American Knee Society (AKSS), The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) or The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) to report on PROMs were included.

Results

The postoperative weighted mean AKSS knee scores were 88.6 in the second-generation PFA group and 91.8 in the TKA group. The postoperative weighted mean AKSS function score was 79.5 in the second-generation PFA group and 86.4 in the TKA group. There was no significant difference in the mean AKSS knee or function scores between the second-generation PFA group and the TKA group. The postoperative weighted mean OKS score was 36.7 and the postoperative weighted mean WOMAC score was 24.4. The revision rate was higher in the second-generation PFA group (113 revisions [8.4%]) than in the TKA group (3 revisions [1.3%]). Progression of OA was most commonly noted as the reason for revision of PFA, and it was noted in 60 cases [53.1%]; this was followed by pain in 33 cases [29.2%].

Conclusion

Excellent postoperative weighted mean AKSS knee scores were found in both the second-generation PFA group and in the TKA group, suggesting that both surgical options can result in a satisfying patient-reported outcome. Higher revision rates in the second-generation PFA studies may in part be due to challenges related to patient selection. Based on evaluation of PROMs, the use of second-generation PFA seems to be an equal option to TKA for treatment of isolated PFOA in appropriately selected patients. Hopefully, this can be considered by physicians in their daily clinical work.

Level of evidence

IV.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Davies AP, Vince AS, Shepstone L, Donell ST, Glasgow MM (2002) The radiologic prevalence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 402:206–212CrossRef
2.
Leadbetter WB, Ragland PS, Mont MA (2005) The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty: an analysis of reported indications, contraindications, and failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:91–99CrossRef
3.
Dy CJ, Franco N, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, McCarthy MM, Gonzalez Della Valle A (2012) Complications after patello-femoral versus total knee replacement in the treatment of isolated patello-femoral osteoarthritis. A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:2174–2190CrossRefPubMed
4.
van der List JP, Chawla H, Villa JC, Pearle AD (2017) Why do patellofemoral arthroplasties fail today? A systematic review. Knee 24:2–8CrossRefPubMed
5.
Lonner JH (2004) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:158–165CrossRef
6.
7.
8.
van Jonbergen H-PW, Werkman DM, Barnaart LF, van Kampen A (2010) Long-term outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:1066–1071CrossRefPubMed
9.
Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P (2012) 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 2:e000435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Bourne RB, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K (2010) Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA: is there a difference? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:542–546CrossRefPubMed
11.
Ackroyd CE, Chir B (2005) Development and early results of a new patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:7–13CrossRef
12.
Ackroyd CE, Newman JH, Evans R, Eldridge JDJ, Joslin CC (2007) The Avon patellofemoral arthroplasty: five-year survivorship and functional results. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89:310–315CrossRef
13.
Ahearn N, Metcalfe AJ, Hassaballa MA, Porteous AJ, Robinson JR, Murray JR, Newman JH (2016) The journey patellofemoral joint arthroplasty: a minimum 5 year follow-up study. Knee 23:900–904CrossRefPubMed
14.
Akhbari P, Malak T, Dawson-Bowling S, East D, Miles K, Butler-Manuel PA (2015) The Avon patellofemoral joint replacement: mid-term prospective results from an independent centre. Clin Orthop Surg 7:171–176CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Al-Hadithy N, Patel R, Navadgi B, Deo S, Hollinghurst D, Satish V (2014) Mid-term results of the FPV patellofemoral joint replacement. Knee 21:138–141CrossRefPubMed
16.
Beitzel K, Schöttle PB, Cotic M, Dharmesh V, Imhoff AB (2013) Prospective clinical and radiological two-year results after patellofemoral arthroplasty using an implant with an asymmetric trochlea design. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:332–339CrossRefPubMed
17.
Benazzo F, Rossi SMP, Ghiara M (2014) Partial knee arthroplasty: patellofemoral arthroplasty and combined unicompartmental and patellofemoral arthroplasty implants—general considerations and indications, technique and clinical experience. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S43–S46CrossRefPubMed
18.
Butler JE, Shannon R (2009) Patellofemoral arthroplasty with a custom-fit femoral prosthesis. Orthopaedics 32:81
19.
Charalambous CP, Abiddin Z, Mills SP, Rogers S, Sutton P, Parkinson R (2011) The low contact stress patellofemoral replacement: high early failure rate. J Bone Jt Surg Br 93:484–489CrossRef
20.
Davies AP (2013) High early revision rate with the FPV patello-femoral unicompartmental arthroplasty. Knee 20:482–484CrossRefPubMed
21.
Gao X, Xu Z-J, He R-X, Yan S-G, Wu L-D (2010) A preliminary report of patellofemoral arthroplasty in isolated patellofemoral arthritis. Chin Med J (Engl) 123:3020–3023
22.
Goh GS-H, Liow MHL, Tay DK-J, Lo NN, Yeo SJ (2015) Four-year follow up outcome study of patellofemoral arthroplasty at a single institution. J Arthroplast 30:959–963CrossRef
23.
Hernigou P, Philippe H, Caton J (2014) Design, operative technique and ten-year results of the hermestm patellofemoral arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:437–442CrossRefPubMed
24.
Leadbetter WB, Kolisek FR, Levitt RL, Brooker AF, Zietz P, Marker DR, Bonutti PM, Mont MA (2009) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: a multi-centre study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Int Orthop 33:1597–1601CrossRefPubMed
25.
Liow MHL, Goh GS-H, Tay DK-J, Chia S-L, Lo N-N, Yeo S-J (2016) Obesity and the absence of trochlear dysplasia increase the risk of revision in patellofemoral arthroplasty. Knee 23:331–337CrossRefPubMed
26.
Mofidi A, Bajada S, Holt MD, Davies AP (2012) Functional relevance of patellofemoral thickness before and after unicompartmental patellofemoral replacement. Knee 19:180–184CrossRefPubMed
27.
Monk AP, van Duren BH, Pandit H, Shakespeare D, Murray DW, Gill HS (2012) In vivo sagittal plane kinematics of the FPV patellofemoral replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:1104–1109CrossRefPubMed
28.
Mont MA, Johnson AJ, Naziri Q, Kolisek FR, Leadbetter WB (2012) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: 7-year mean follow-up. J Arthroplast 27:358–361CrossRef
29.
Morris MJ, Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Hurst JM, Adams JB (2013) Clinical results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28:199–201CrossRef
30.
Nicol SG, Loveridge JM, Weale AE, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH (2006) Arthritis progression after patellofemoral joint replacement. Knee 13:290–295CrossRefPubMed
31.
Odumenya M, Costa ML, Parsons N, Achten J, Dhillon M, Krikler SJ (2010) The Avon patellofemoral joint replacement: five-year results from an independent centre. J Bone Jt Surg Br 92:56–60CrossRef
32.
Osarumwense D, Syed F, Nzeako O, Akilapa S, Zubair O, Waite J (2017) Patellofemoral joint arthroplasty: early results and functional outcome of the zimmer gender solutions patello-femoral joint system. Clin Orthop Surg 9:295–302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Romagnoli S, Marullo M (2017) Mid-term clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes of 105 gender-specific patellofemoral arthroplasties, with or without the association of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33:688–695CrossRef
34.
35.
Sisto DJ, Sarin VK (2006) Custom patellofemoral arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88:1475–1480CrossRef
36.
Starks I, Roberts S, White SH (2009) The Avon patellofemoral joint replacement: independent assessment of early functional outcomes. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91:1579–1582CrossRef
37.
Williams DP, Pandit HG, Athanasou NA, Murray DW, Gibbons CLMH (2013) Early revisions of the Femoro-Patella Vialla joint replacement. Bone Joint J 95-B:793–797CrossRefPubMed
38.
39.
Laskin RS, van Steijn M (1999) Total knee replacement for patients with patellofemoral arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:89–95
40.
Meding JB, Wing JT, Keating EM, Ritter MA (2007) Total knee arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral arthritis in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:78–82PubMed
41.
Mont MA, Haas S, Mullick T, Hungerford DS (2002) Total knee arthroplasty for patellofemoral arthritis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 84-A:1977–1981CrossRef
42.
Parvizi J, Stuart MJ, Pagnano MW, Hanssen AD (2001) Total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:147–152CrossRef
43.
Thompson NW, Ruiz AL, Breslin E, Beverland DE (2001) Total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing in isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplast 16:607–612CrossRef
44.
Dahm DL, Al-Rayashi W, Dajani K, Shah JP, Levy BA, Stuart MJ (2010) Patellofemoral arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 39:487–491
45.
Odgaard A, Madsen F, Kristensen PW, Kappel A, Fabrin J (2018) The mark coventry award: patellofemoral arthroplasty results in better range of movement and early patient-reported outcomes than TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 476:87–100CrossRefPubMed
46.
Wright JG, Swiontkowski MF, Heckman JD (2003) Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A:1–3CrossRef
47.
Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 328:1490
48.
Hamilton TW, Pandit HG, Lombardi AV, Adams JB, Oosthuizen CR, Clavé A, Dodd CA, Berend KR, Murray DW (2016) Radiological decision aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation. Bone Jt J 98-B:3–10CrossRef
49.
Burn E, Sanchez-Santos MT, Pandit HG, Hamilton TW, Liddle AD, Murray DW, Pinedo-Villanueva R (2016) Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1455–1464CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Tauro B, Ackroyd CE, Newman JH, Shah NA (2001) The Lubinus patellofemoral arthroplasty. A five- to ten-year prospective study. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83:696–701CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Similar postoperative patient-reported outcome in both second generation patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty for treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a systematic review
Authors
Kristine Ifigenia Bunyoz
Sébastien Lustig
Anders Troelsen
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 7/2019
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5151-8

Other articles of this Issue 7/2019

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 7/2019 Go to the issue

KNEE

Valgus position of the femoral component causes abnormal kinematics in the presence of medial looseness in total knee arthroplasty: a computer simulation model of TKA for valgus knee osteoarthritis

KNEE

Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty implants combined with surface cementation produced satisfactory clinical and radiographic outcomes at the 5-year follow-up

KNEE

Retrieval analysis of contemporary antioxidant polyethylene: multiple material and design changes may decrease implant performance

KNEE

Fulfillment of expectations influence patient satisfaction 5 years after total knee arthroplasty

KNEE

Eight respectively nine out of ten patients return to sport and work after distal femoral osteotomy

Knee

Higher failure rate of two-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasties in significantly compromised (host-C) patients