Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

No difference in joint awareness after TKA: a matched-pair analysis of a classic implant and its evolutional design

  • KNEE
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs continuously evolve with the aim of improving patient outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcome (PRO) results of a new TKA implant to its predecessor. The hypothesis of this study was that joint awareness and range of motion (ROM) of the newer design would be better than the classic design.

Methods

One hundred patients undergoing TKA using the newer design (Attune®) were matched by age and gender to 200 patients with the classic design (LCS®). All patients underwent computer-navigated (Vector Vision, Brain-Lab, Germany) primary TKA by the same surgeon using the same technique. Data (FJS-12, WOMAC and ROM) were collected preoperatively and at 12 months follow-up at our implant registry.

Results

Compared to preoperative scores, FJS-12, WOMAC and ROM improved significantly at 12 months follow-up. In the Attune group, mean FJS-12 and WOMAC at follow-up were 67.6 (SD 27.8) and 14.8 (SD 14.9) respectively, compared to 70.8 (SD 33.8) and 15 (SD 17.9) in the LCS group. Mean postoperative ROM was similar in both groups (Attune 120°, range 90°–140°, SD 10.4 and LCS 120°, range 85°–140°, SD 10.3).

Conclusion

The newer TKA and the predecessor design achieved comparable joint awareness, WOMAC scores and ROM at 1-year follow-up. The benefits expected of the newer design could not be observed in early clinical and PROs. The clinical relevance of this study is that it questions the importance of implant design as the single most important factor for patient outcomes.

Level of evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Amis AA, Senavongse W, Bull AMJ (2006) Patellofemoral kinematics during knee flexion-extension: an in vitro study. J Orthop Res 24(12):2201–2211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Anand R, Graves SE, de Steiger RN, Davidson DC, Ryan P et al (2011) What is the benefit of introducing new hip and knee prostheses? J Bone Jt Surg 3:51–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baumann F, Ernstberger T, Loibl M, Zeman F, Nerlich M et al (2016) Validation of the German Forgotten Joint Score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(2):257–264

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27(3):430–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW (1986) A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol 5(2):231–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Fitzgerald JD, Orav EJ, Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Poss R et al (2004) Patient quality of life during the 12 months following joint replacement surgery. Arthritis Care Res 51:100–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hamilton DF, Giesinger JM, MacDonald DJ, Simpson AHRW, Howie CR et al (2016) Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 following total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt Res 5(3):87–91

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hamilton DF, Loth FL, Giesinger JM, Giesinger K, MacDonald DJ et al (2017) Validation of the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population. Bone Jt J 99(2):218–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hossain FS, Konan S, Patel S, Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Haddad FS (2015) The assessment of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: are we there yet? Bone Jt J 97(1):3–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Indelli PF, Pipino G, Johnson P, Graceffa A, Marcucci M (2016) Posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a matched pair analysis of a classic and its evolutional design. Arthroplasty Today 2:193–198

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalson NS, Borthwick LA, Mann DA, Deehan DJ, Lewis P et al (2016) International consensus on the definition and classification of fibrosis of the knee joint. Bone Jt J 98(11):1479–1488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS (2012) High-flexion total knee arthroplasty: survivorship and prevalence of osteolysis: results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg 94(15):1378–1384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ko YB, Jang EC, Park SM, Kim SH, Kwak YH et al (2015) No difference in clinical and radiologic outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with a new ultra-congruent mobile bearing system and rotating platform mobile bearing systems after minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 30:379–383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lampart M, Behrend H, Moser LB, Hirschmann MT (2018) Due to great variability fixed HKS angle for alignment of the distal cut leads to a significant error in coronal TKA orientation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5041-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin JR, Jennings JM, Watters TS, Levy DL, McNabb DC et al (2017) Femoral implant design modification decreases the incidence of patellar crepitus in Total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32:1310–1313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matsumoto M, Baba T, Homma Y, Kobayashi H, Ochi H et al (2015) Validation study of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 as a universal patient-reported outcome measure. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(7):1141–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Peltola M, Malmivaara A, Paavola M (2012) Introducing a knee endoprosthesis model increases risk of early revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(6):1711–1717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ranawat CS, White PB, West S, Ranawat AS (2017) Clinical and radiographic results of attune and PFC sigma knee designs at 2-year follow-up: a prospective matched-pair analysis. J Arthroplasty 32(2):431–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shadid MB, Vinken NS, Marting LN, Wolterbeek N (2016) The Dutch version of the Forgotten Joint Score: test-retesting reliability and validation. Acta Orthop Belg 82(1):112–118

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Thienpont E, Opsomer G, Koninckx A, Houssiau F (2013) Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the Forgotten Joint Score. J Arthroplasty 29(1):48–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thompson SM, Salmon LJ, Webb JM, Pinczewski LA, Roe JP (2015) Construct validity and test re-test reliability of the Forgotten Joint Score. J Arthroplasty 30(11):1902–1905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomsen MG, Husted H, Otte KS, Holm G, Troelsen A (2013) Do patients care about higher flexion in total knee arthroplasty? A randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 14:127

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Vanden ETA, Schwab BPE, Cornu JPFO (2016) Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the ‘Forgotten Joint’ Score before and after joint replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24(10):3346–3351

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding was used.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, Rorschacherstrasse 95, 9007, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Henrik Behrend, Vilijam Zdravkovic, Marco Bösch & Bettina Hochreiter

Authors
  1. Henrik Behrend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vilijam Zdravkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Bösch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bettina Hochreiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henrik Behrend.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Approval was obtained from the local ethics committee (Ethikkommission Ostschweiz, Project ID 2018-00927).

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Behrend, H., Zdravkovic, V., Bösch, M. et al. No difference in joint awareness after TKA: a matched-pair analysis of a classic implant and its evolutional design. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27, 2124–2129 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05407-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05407-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation