A matched-pair comparison of inlay and onlay trochlear designs for patellofemoral arthroplasty: no differences in clinical outcome but less progression of osteoarthritis with inlay designs
- 471 Downloads
To compare clinical and radiographic results after isolated patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) using either a second-generation inlay or onlay trochlear design. The hypothesis was that an inlay design will produce better clinical results and less progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) compared to an onlay design.
Fifteen consecutive patients undergoing isolated PFA with an onlay design trochlear component (Journey™ PFJ, Smith & Nephew) were matched with 15 patients after isolated PFA with an inlay design trochlear component (HemiCAP® Wave, Arthrosurface). Matching criteria were age, gender, body mass index, and follow-up period. An independent observer evaluated patients prospectively, whereas data were compared retrospectively. Clinical outcome was assessed using WOMAC, Lysholm score, and pain VAS. Kellgren–Lawrence grading was used to assess progression of tibiofemoral OA.
Conversion to total knee arthroplasty was necessary in one patient within each group, leaving 14 patients per group for final evaluation. The mean follow-up was 26 months in the inlay group and 25 months in the onlay group (n.s.). Both groups displayed significant improvements of all clinical scores (p < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the clinical outcome and reoperation rate. No significant progression of tibiofemoral OA was observed in the inlay group, whereas 53 % of the onlay group showed progression of medial and/or lateral tibiofemoral OA (p = 0.009).
Isolated PFA using either a second-generation inlay or onlay trochlear component significantly improves functional outcome scores and pain. The theoretical advantages of an inlay design did not result in better clinical outcome scores; however, progression of tibiofemoral OA was significantly less common in patients with an inlay trochlear component. This implant design may therefore improve long-term results and survival rates after isolated PFA.
Level of evidence
KeywordsPatellofemoral arthritis Patellofemoral arthroplasty Inlay Onlay HemiCAP Wave Journey PFJ
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
A. B. Imhoff and P. B. Schöttle are consultants for Arthrosurface. The company had no influence on study design, data collection, and interpretation of the results or the final manuscript.
- 3.Arciero RA, Toomey HE (1988) Patellofemoral arthroplasty. A three- to nine-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236:60–71Google Scholar
- 5.Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Blazina ME, Fox JM, Del Pizzo W, Broukhim B, Ivey FM (1979) Patellofemoral replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 144:98–102Google Scholar
- 9.Brattstroem H (1964) Shape of the intercondylar groove normally and in recurrent dislocation of patella. A clinical and X-ray-anatomical investigation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 68(SUPPL 68):61–148Google Scholar