Patient-Reported Outcomes following Single- and Multiple-Radius Total Knee Replacement: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Nadeem Mushtaq; Alexander D. Liddle; David Isaac; Katherine Dillow; Paul Gill

doi:10.1055/s-0037-1602132

The Journal of Knee Surgery, Table of Contents

J Knee Surg 2018; 31(01): 087-091
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602132

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Patient-Reported Outcomes following Single- and Multiple-Radius Total Knee Replacement: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Nadeem Mushtaq

¹Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom

,

Alexander D. Liddle

²University College London Institute of Orthopaedics and Musculoskeletal Science, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, University College London, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, United Kingdom

,

David Isaac

³Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Torbay Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Torbay, United Kingdom

,

Katherine Dillow

⁴Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust, Dartford, United Kingdom

,

Paul Gill

⁵Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Princess Royal University Hospital, London, United Kingdom

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Although single-radius (SR) designs of total knee replacement (TKR) have theoretical benefits, the clinical advantage conferred by such designs is unknown. The aim of this randomized, controlled study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of the two design rationales. A total of 105 knees were randomized to receive either a single radius (Scorpio, Stryker; SR Group) or multiple radius (AGC, Zimmer Biomet; MR group) TKR. Patient-reported outcomes (Oxford Knee Score [OKS] and Knee Society Score [KSS]) were collected at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year following surgery. No knees were revised. There was no difference in primary outcomes: OKS was 39.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36.9–42.1) in the SR group and 38.1 (95% CI: 36.0–40.3) in the MR group (p = 0.40). KSS was 168.4 (95% CI: 159.8–177.0) in the SR group; 159.5 (95% CI 150.5–168.5) in the MR group (p = 0.16). There was a small but statistically significant difference in the degree of change of the objective subscale of the KSS, favoring the SR design (p = 0.04), but this is of uncertain clinical relevance. The reported benefits of SR designs do not provide demonstrable functional advantages in the short term.

Keywords

total knee replacement - single-radius - multiple-radius - patient-reported outcome

Full Text

References

References
1 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. 2014
2 Anand R, Graves SE, de Steiger RN. , et al. What is the benefit of introducing new hip and knee prostheses?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (Suppl. 03) 51-54
3 Rodriguez JA, Bhende H, Ranawat CS. Total condylar knee replacement: a 20-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388) 10-17
4 Stoddard JE, Deehan DJ, Bull AM, McCaskie AW, Amis AA. The kinematics and stability of single-radius versus multi-radius femoral components related to mid-range instability after TKA. J Orthop Res 2013; 31 (01) 53-58
5 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (01) 63-69
6 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
7 Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K. , et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (08) 1010-1014
8 Williams DP, Price AJ, Beard DJ. , et al. The effects of age on patient-reported outcome measures in total knee replacements. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (01) 38-44
9 Johnston L, MacLennan G, McCormack K, Ramsay C, Walker A. ; KAT Trial Group. The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (01) 134-141
10 Sedgwick P. Pitfalls of statistical hypothesis testing: multiple testing. BMJ 2014; 349: g5310
11 Martin A, Quah C, Syme G, Lammin K, Segaren N, Pickering S. Long term survivorship following Scorpio total knee replacement. Knee 2015; 22 (03) 192-196
12 Huizinga MR, Brouwer RW, Bisschop R, van der Veen HC, van den Akker-Scheek I, van Raay JJ. Long-term follow-up of anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty: a 15- to 20-year survival analysis. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (06) 1190-1195
13 Borrione F, Bonnevialle P, Mabit C. , et al. Scorpio single radius total knee arthroplasty. A minimal five-year follow-up multicentric study. Int Orthop 2011; 35 (12) 1777-1782
14 Ritter MA. The anatomical graduated component total knee replacement: a long-term evaluation with 20-year survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (06) 745-749
15 Jo AR, Song EK, Lee KB, Seo HY, Kim SK, Seon JK. A comparison of stability and clinical outcomes in single-radius versus multi-radius femoral design for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12) 2402-2406
16 Ward TR, Pandit H, Hollinghurst D. , et al. Improved quadriceps' mechanical advantage in single radius TKRs is not due to an increased patellar tendon moment arm. Knee 2012; 19 (05) 564-570
17 Larsen B, Jacofsky MC, Jacofsky DJ. Quantitative, comparative assessment of gait between single-radius and multi-radius total knee arthroplasty designs. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (06) 1062-1067
18 Molt M, Ljung P, Toksvig-Larsen S. Does a new knee design perform as well as the design it replaces?. Bone Joint Res 2012; 1 (12) 315-323
19 Cook LE, Klika AK, Szubski CR, Rosneck J, Molloy R, Barsoum WK. Functional outcomes used to compare single radius and multiradius of curvature designs in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2012; 25 (03) 249-253
20 Williams DP, Blakey CM, Hadfield SG, Murray DW, Price AJ, Field RE. Long-term trends in the Oxford knee score following total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (01) 45-51
21 Murray DW, MacLennan GS, Breeman S. , et al; KAT group. A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT). Health Technol Assess 2014; 18 (19) 1-235 , vii–viii
22 Dawson J, Beard DJ, McKibbin H, Harris K, Jenkinson C, Price AJ. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of activity and participation (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (03) 332-338
23 Jenny JY, Louis P, Diesinger Y. High activity arthroplasty score has a lower ceiling effect than standard scores after knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (04) 719-721
24 Wiik AV, Aqil A, Tankard S, Amis AA, Cobb JP. Downhill walking gait pattern discriminates between types of knee arthroplasty: improved physiological knee functionality in UKA versus TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (06) 1748-1755