Skip to main content
Log in

Promising early outcomes of a novel anatomic knee system

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



The primary aim of this study was to report the early clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who have been treated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the Persona knee system. The secondary aim was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the Persona knee system to those of the NexGen implant.


A registry-based study of a consecutive series of 112 patients (129 knees) treated with the Persona knee system from a single center was conducted. Preoperative, 1-year, and 2-year radiographs and PROs were analyzed. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for radiolucency and component positioning. Patients were monitored for postoperative complications and revision. Two-year PROs were compared to a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort of patients treated with the NexGen knee system.


Ninety-five percent of knees were within literature-defined safe ranges of the anatomical tibiofemoral axis, tibial varus/valgus angle, femoral flexion/extension angle, and tibial slope. Radiolucency was observed in 0.9% and 1.3% of knees at one and 2 years, respectively. Two-year PRO values demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements from the preoperative values. The cumulative 2-year percent revision was 3.0% (95% confidence interval 1.9–3.8%); there were no revisions due to implant mechanical failure. Patients treated with the Persona knee system had higher KOOS symptom (p = 0.037) and KOOS QOL (p < 0.001) scores compared to patients with the NexGen knee system.


This knee design demonstrates excellent clinical outcomes, similar or better than the NexGen knee system, at early follow-up.

Level of evidence


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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Akagi M, Mori S, Nishimura S, Nishimura A, Asano T, Hamanishi C (2005) Variability of extraarticular tibial rotation references for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:172–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Anakwe RE, Jenkins PJ, Moran M (2011) Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients. J Arthroplast 26:209–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AOANJRR (2017) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry 2017 Hip, Knee and Shoulder Arthroplasty Annual Report. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  4. Barr CJ, Barbalace RJ, Wessinger SJ, Bragdon CR, Kwon YM, Malchau H (2012) Validation of a hospital-based joint registry. Quantification of errors and maximizing utility. J Arthroplast 27:1766–1771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonnin MP, Saffarini M, Mercier P-E, Laurent J-R, Carrillon Y (2011) Is the anterior tibial tuberosity a reliable rotational landmark for the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast 26:260–267.e1-e2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Breeman S, Campbell MK, Dakin H, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Grant A, Gray A, Johnston L, MacLennan GS, Morris RW, Murray DW (2013) Five-year results of a randomised controlled trial comparing mobile and fixed bearings in total knee replacement. Bone Jt J 95–B:486–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM (2011) Measures of knee function. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 11):S208–S228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dai Y, Scuderi GR, Penninger C, Bischoff JE, Rosenberg A (2014) Increased shape and size offerings of femoral components improve fit during total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:2931–2940

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Daigle ME, Weinstein AM, Katz JN, Losina E (2012) The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 26(5):649–658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ewald F, C (1989) Roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:2–5

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fang DM, Ritter MA, Davis KE (2009) Coronal alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Just how important is it? J Arthroplast 24:39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gøthesen Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Petursson G, Hallan G, Strøm E, Dyrhovden G, Furnes O (2014) Functional outcome and alignment in computer-assisted and conventionally operated total knee replacements: a multicentre parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Bone Jt J 96B:609–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Graceffa A, Indelli PF, Basnett K, Marcucci M (2014) Analysis of differences in bone removal during femoral box osteotomy for primary total knee arthroplasty. Joints 2:76–80

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gromov K, Korchi M, Thomsen MG, Husted H, Troelsen A (2014) What is the optimal alignment of the tibial and femoral components in knee arthroplasty? An overview of the literature. Acta Orthop 85:480–487

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Gunaratne R, Pratt DN, Banda J, Fick DP, Khan RJK, Robertson BW (2017) Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplast 32(12):3854–3860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hansen VJ, Greene ME, Bragdon MA, Nebergall AK, Barr CJ, Huddleston JI, Bragdon CR, Malchau H (2014) Registries collecting level-I through IV data: institutional and multicenter use: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Jt Surg 96:e160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Patton JT, Howie CR (2013) Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. Bone Jt J 95-B:115–121

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Jeon YS, Shin JS, Jung JH, Kim MK (2016) Total knee arthroplasty using NexGen LPS-flex® improves clinical outcomes without early loosening: minimum 6-year follow-up results. J Orthop Surg Res 11(1):83

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jin C, Song EK, Prakash J, Kim SK, Chan CK, Seon JK (2017) How much does the anatomical tibial component improve the bony coverage in total knee. Arthroplasty? J Arthroplast 32:1829–1833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2014) Fixation, survival and osteolysis with a modern posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mahoney OM, Kinsey T (2010) Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. J Bone Jt Surg 92:1115–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Malchau H (1995) On the importance of stepwise introduction of new hip implant technology: assessment of total hip replacement using clinical evaluation, radiostereometry, digitized radiography and a national hip registry. Thesis, Goteborg University (ISBN 91-628-1658-6)

  23. Malik A, Salas A, Ben Ari J, Ma Y, González Della Valle A (2010) Range of motion and function are similar in patients undergoing TKA with posterior stabilised and high-flexion inserts. Int Orthop 34:965–972

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Morris WZ, Gebhart JJ, Goldberg VM, Wera GD (2016) Implant size availability affects reproduction of distal femoral anatomy. J Knee Surg 29:409–413

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Palazzo C, Jourdan C, Descamps S, Nizard R, Hamadouche M, Anract P, Boisgard S, Galvin M, Ravaud P, Poiraudeau S (2014) Determinants of satisfaction 1 year after total hip arthroplasty: the role of expectations fulfilment. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Paulsen A, Roos EM, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S (2014) Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop 85:39–48

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Ren AN, Neher RE, Bell T, Grimm J (2018) Using patient demographics and statistical modeling to predict knee tibia component sizing in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33(6):1732–1736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ritter M, Gioe TJ, Stringer E (1981) Radiolucency surrounding the posterior cruciate condylar total knee prosthetic components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 160:149–152

    Google Scholar 

  29. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther 28:88–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Saffarini M, Demey G, Nover L, Dejour D (2016) Evolution of trochlear compartment geometry in total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 4:7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Schroer WC, Stormont DM, Pietrzak WS (2014) Seven-year survivorship and functional outcomes of the high-flexion vanguard complete knee system. J Arthroplast 29:61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. SKAR (2016) Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. In: Annual report 2016. Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  33. Thienpont E, Vanden Berghe A, Schwab PE, Forthomme JP, Cornu O (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 24:3346–3351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Cori LAA, Scoville JM, Grove MR, Morgan TS, Swarup I, Moschetti WE, Spratt KF (2014) Early patient outcomes after primary total knee arthroplasty with quadriceps-sparing subvastus and medial parapatellar techniques: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. J Bone Jt Surg 96:907–915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2015) Class 2 device recall Persona trabecular metal tibial plate/Persona TM tibia. Accessed 1 Oct 2018

  36. Vince KG (2003) Why knees fail. J Arthroplast 18(3 Suppl 1):39–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplast 13:890–895

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


This study was supported by the Harris Orthopaedic Laboratory (HOL), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts and ZimmerBiomet, Warsaw, Indiana. The institutions and ZimmerBiomet signed a standard legal study agreement. The agreement stated that the economic support was granted unconditionally and that the manufacturer would have no influence on study design, data analysis or publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincent P. Galea.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

VPG, MAB, RM, CSN, and CB declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Massachusetts General Hospital (approval #: 2014P002678) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Galea, V.P., Botros, M.A., Madanat, R. et al. Promising early outcomes of a novel anatomic knee system. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27, 1067–1074 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: