Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Novel morphogenic knee implant delivers comparable mid-term outcomes as compared to conventional non-morphogenic implants

  • Knee Arthroplasty
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Conventional total knee arthroplasty (C-TKA) implants have well-established mid- and long-term outcomes. The novel TKA (N-TKA) implants provide morphogenic implant components with smaller size increments to facilitate anatomical replication. The aim of the study is to evaluate if these advantages provides better clinical outcomes.

Materials and methods

Registry data prospectively collected within a single institution from 2014 to 2018 was reviewed and propensity score matching was performed to match C-TKA to N-TKA. 70 pairs of cruciate retaining (CR) TKA and 116 pairs of posterior stabilized (PS) TKA were identified. Range of motion, SF-36, Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were assessed preoperatively, 6 and 24 months postoperatively. Satisfaction was assessed 6 and 24 months postoperatively. Independent T test was performed for parametric data, whereas Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis was performed for non-parametric data.

Results

Both C-TKA and N-TKA cohorts demonstrated statistically significant improvement for KSKS, KSFS, OKS and SF-36 at 6 and 24 months postoperatively. C-TKA CR patients had better flexion at 6 months as compared to N-TKA CR (108.7° versus 98.3°, respectively, p = 0.046). At 24 months, there was no difference between C-TKA and N-TKA for range of motion, KSKS, KSFS, OKS and SF-36 PCS, regardless of insert type (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Both models showed great postoperative improvements in KSFS, KSKS, OKS and SF-36 and have comparable early and mid-term outcomes, suggesting that N-TKAs are suitable substitutes for C-TKA. Longer follow-up studies are required to evaluate the long-term outcomes of N-TKAs.

Level of evidence

lll.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the first author.

References

  1. Inacio MCS, Graves SE, Pratt NL, Roughead EE, Nemes S (2017) Increase in total joint arthroplasty projected from 2014 to 2046 in Australia: a conservative local model with international implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475(8):2130–2137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5377-7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kurtz SM et al (2011) International survey of primary and revision total knee replacement. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1235-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. NCT03568123 (2018) A comparison of the Persona Total Knee Arthroplasty System using CR or MC polyethylene. https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/nct03568123. 2018 [Online]. Available: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central/doi/10.1002/central/CN-01660618/full

  4. Kahlenberg CA, Nwachukwu BU, McLawhorn AS, Cross MB, Cornell CN, Padgett DE (2018) Patient satisfaction after total knee replacement: a systematic review. HSS J 14(2):192–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-018-9614-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunbar MJ, Richardson G, Robertsson O (2013) I can’t get no satisfaction after my total knee replacement: rhymes and reasons. Bone Jt J 95(11):148–152. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Patil KD, Sancheti PK, Patil AA, Shyam A (2017) What makes patients of TKR unhappy? A study of subjective patient satisfaction. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 33(10):e117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Howells N, Murray J, Wylde V, Dieppe P, Blom A (2016) Persistent pain after knee replacement: do factors associated with pain vary with degree of patient dissatisfaction? Osteoarthr Cartil 24(12):2061–2068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.07.012

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Hadithy N, Rozati H, Sewell MD, Dodds AL, Brooks P, Chatoo M (2012) Causes of a painful total knee arthroplasty. Are patients still receiving total knee arthroplasty for extrinsic pathologies? Int Orthop 36(6):1185–1189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1473-6

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Nicoll D, Rowley DI (2010) Internal rotational error of the tibial component is a major cause of pain after total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B9.23516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martin JR, Jennings JM, Watters TS, Levy DL, McNabb DC, Dennis DA (2017) Femoral implant design modification decreases the incidence of patellar crepitus in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.025

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohamadi A et al (2021) Evolution of knowledge on meniscal biomechanics: a 40 year perspective. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04492-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang L et al (2020) Knee joint biomechanics in physiological conditions and how pathologies can affect it: a systematic review. Appl Bionics Biomech. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7451683

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Saffarini M, Demey G, Nover L, Dejour D (2016) Evolution of trochlear compartment geometry in total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.12.53

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Koo JH, Choi SH, Lee SA, Wang JH (2015) Comparison of medial and lateral meniscus root tears. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. A. A. Report (2021) Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty annual report 2021. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, 2021. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/732916/AOA+2022+AR+Digital/f63ed890-36d0-c4b3-2e0b-7b63e2071b16. Accessed 11 Dec 2022

  17. Alkan BM, Fidan F, Tosun A, Ardiçoǧlu Ö (2014) Quality of life and self-reported disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Mod Rheumatol 24(1):166–171. https://doi.org/10.3109/14397595.2013.854046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Raczek AE (1993) The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (Sf-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ware JE (2000) SF-36 Health Survey update. Spine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN (2012) The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2135-0

  21. Home. https://www.kneesociety.org/. Accessed 01 May 2022

  22. Murray DW et al (2007) The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B 89(8):1010–1014. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Beard DJ, Pandit H, Ostlere S, Jenkins C, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2007) Pre-operative clinical and radiological assessment of the patellofemoral joint in unicompartmental knee replacement and its influence on outcome. J Bone Jt Surg Ser B. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B12.19260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hassaballa MA, Porteous AJ, Newman JH, Rogers CA (2003) Can knees kneel? Kneeling ability after total, unicompartmental and patellofemoral knee arthroplasty. Knee. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(02)00148-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim JK, Park JY, Lee HJ, Ro DH, Han HS, Lee MC (2020) Do the increment of femoral condyle curvature and the change of tibia shape improve clinical outcome in total knee arthroplasty? A propensity score matching analysis. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 28(9):2980–2989. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05727-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rajgopal A, Aggarwal K, Kumar S (2020) A five-year comparative functional and clinical evaluation of two contemporary cruciate-retaining knee implants. Arthroplast Today. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2020.05.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M (2001) Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:315–318. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200111000-00041

  28. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200211000-00003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Petersen W et al (2014) Anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty: a narrative review. Int Orthop 38(2):319–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2081-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Koh IJ, In Y, Kim MS, Choi YJ, Choi KY (2017) Patellar-friendly implant does not affect patient perception of patellar management following total knee arthroplasty: a simultaneous bilateral randomized study. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.090

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. van Jonbergen HPW, Reuver JM, Mutsaerts EL, Poolman RW (2014) Determinants of anterior knee pain following total knee replacement: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(3):478–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2294-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Dai Y, Scuderi GR, Bischoff JE, Bertin K, Tarabichi S, Rajgopal A (2014) Anatomic tibial component design can increase tibial coverage and rotational alignment accuracy: a comparison of six contemporary designs. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 22(12):2911–2923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3282-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Stulberg SD, Goyal N (2015) Which tibial tray design achieves maximum coverage and ideal rotation: anatomic, symmetric, or asymmetric? An MRI-based study. J Arthroplasty 30(10):1839–1841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Maciąg BM et al (2021) Does the anatomic design of total knee prosthesis allow for a better component fit than its nonanatomic predecessor? A matched cohort Study. Arthroplast Today 12:62–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.09.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 Arthroplasty 32(6):1829–1833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.12.041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Indelli PF, Graceffa A, Baldini A, Payne B, Pipino G, Marcucci M (2015) Relationship between tibial baseplate design and rotational alignment landmarks in primary total knee arthroplasty. Arthritis 2015:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/189294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Martin S, Saurez A, Ismaily S, Ashfaq K, Noble P, Incavo SJ (2014) Maximizing tibial coverage is detrimental to proper rotational alignment knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(1):121–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3047-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Park SD (2014) The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2097-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bédard M, Vince KG, Redfern J, Collen SR (2011) Internal rotation of the tibial component is frequent in stiff total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(8):2346–2355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1889-8

  40. Bizzozero P, Bulaid Y, Flecher X, Ollivier M, Parratte S, Argenson JN (2018) Morphometric tibial implant decreases posterior overhang rate and improves clinical outcomes: results of a prospective, matched controlled study. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.04.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee JK, Choi CH (2012) Total knee arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis. Knee Surg Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2012.24.1.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Shan Wang X, Xin Zhou Y, Yi Shao H, Jin Yang D, Huang Y, Fang Duan F (2020) Total knee arthroplasty in patients with prior femoral and tibial fractures: outcomes and risk factors for surgical site complications and reoperations. Orthop Surg 12(1):210–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dietz MJ, Sprando D, Hanselman AE, Regier MD, Frye BM (2017) Smartphone assessment of knee flexion compared to radiographic standards. Knee 24(2):224–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Galea VP, Botros MA, Madanat R, Nielsen CS, Bragdon C (2019) Promising early outcomes of a novel anatomic knee system. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 27(4):1067–1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5248-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mathijssen NMC, Verburg H, London NJ, Landsiedl M, Dominkus M (2019) Patient reported outcomes and implant survivorship after total knee arthroplasty with the persona knee implant system: two year follow up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-2470-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Annual reports. National Joint Registry. https://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Reports-Publications-and-Minutes/Annual-reports. Accessed 10 Dec 2021

  47. 2021-AOANJRR. Australian Orthopaedic Associate National Joint Replacement Registry. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/annual-reports-2021. Accessed 10 Dec 2021

  48. Koster LA, Meinardi JE, Kaptein BL, VanderLinden-VanderZwaag E, Nelissen RGHH (2021) Two-year RSA migration results of symmetrical and asymmetrical tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Bone Jt J. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B5.BJJ-2020-1575.R2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Level 4, Singapore, 169856, Singapore

    Craigven Hao Sheng Sim, Jerry Delphi Yongqiang Chen, Hee Nee Pang, Seng Jin Yeo, Ngai Nung Lo & Ming Han Lincoln Liow

Authors
  1. Craigven Hao Sheng Sim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jerry Delphi Yongqiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hee Nee Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Seng Jin Yeo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ngai Nung Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ming Han Lincoln Liow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the study, data collection and processing and analysis of data. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ming Han Lincoln Liow.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors of this paper have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical approval

An Institutional Review Board approval (CIRB 2020-2750) was granted for this study.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) for their anonymized information to be published in this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sim, C.H.S., Chen, J.D.Y., Pang, H.N. et al. Novel morphogenic knee implant delivers comparable mid-term outcomes as compared to conventional non-morphogenic implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 7159–7167 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04990-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-023-04990-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation