The Mark Coventry Award: Patellofemoral Arthroplasty Results in Better Range of Movement and Early Patient-reported Outcomes Than TKA

Patellofemoral arthroplasty is cheaper and more effective in the short term than total knee arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: cost-effectiveness analysis based on a randomized trial

AIMS

The aim is to assess the cost-effectiveness of patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) in comparison with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) based on prospectively collected data on health outcomes and resource use from a blinded, randomized, clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis were randomized to receive either PFA or TKA by experienced knee surgeons trained in using both implants. Patients completed patient-reported outcomes including EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and 6-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-6D) before the procedure. The scores were completed again after six weeks, three, six, and nine months, and again after one- and two-year post-surgery and yearly henceforth. Time-weighted outcome measures were constructed. Cost data were obtained from clinical registrations and patient-reported questionnaires. Incremental gain in health outcomes (quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) and incremental costs were compared for the two groups of patients. Net monetary benefit was calculated assuming a threshold value of €10,000, €35,000, and €50,000 per QALY and used to test the statistical uncertainty and central assumptions about outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

The PFA group had an incremental 12 month EQ-5D gain of 0.056 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.10) and an incremental 12 month cost of minus €328 (95% CI 836 to 180). PFA therefore dominates TKA by providing better and cheaper outcomes than TKA. The net monetary benefit of PFA was €887 (95% CI 324 to 1450) with the €10,000 threshold, and it was consistently positive when different measures of outcomes and different cost assumptions were used.

CONCLUSION

This study provides robust evidence that PFA from a one-year hospital management perspective is cheaper and provides better outcomes than TKA when applied to patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis and performed by experienced knee surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):449-457.

The PAT randomized clinical trial

AIMS

A pragmatic, single-centre, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in a NHS teaching hospital to evaluate whether there is a difference in functional knee scores, quality-of-life outcome assessments, and complications at one-year after intervention between total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) in patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis.

METHODS

This parallel, two-arm, superiority trial was powered at 80%, and involved 64 patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis. The primary outcome measure was the functional section of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the full 24-item WOMAC, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society Score (AKSS), EuroQol five dimension (EQ-5D) quality-of-life score, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Physical Activity Rating Scale, and complication rates collected at three, six, and 12 months. For longer-term follow-up, OKS, EQ-5D, and self-reported satisfaction score were collected at 24 and 60 months.

RESULTS

Among 64 patients who were randomized, five patients did not receive the allocated intervention, three withdrew, and one declined the intervention. There were no statistically significant differences in the patients' WOMAC function score at 12 months (adjusted mean difference, -1.2 (95% confidence interval -9.19 to 6.80); p = 0.765). There were no clinically significant differences in the secondary outcomes. Complication rates were comparable (superficial surgical site infections, four in the PFA group versus five in the TKA group). There were no statistically significant differences in the patients' OKS score at 24 and 60 months or self-reported satisfaction score or pain-free years.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with severe isolated patellofemoral arthritis, this study found similar functional outcome at 12 months and mid-term in the use of PFA compared with TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):310-318.

Preoperative patellofemoral anatomy affects failure rate after isolated patellofemoral inlay arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To analyze whether preoperative patellofemoral anatomy is associated with clinical improvement and failure rate after isolated patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) using a modern inlay-type trochlear implant.

METHODS

Prospectively collected 24 months data of patients treated with isolated inlay PFA (HemiCAP^® Wave, Arthrosurface, Franklin, MA, USA) between 2009 and 2016, and available digitalized preoperative imaging (plain radiographs in three planes and MRI) were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were evaluated using the WOMAC score, Lysholm score, and VAS pain. Patients revised to TKA or not achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the total WOMAC score or VAS pain were considered failures. Preoperative imaging was analyzed regarding the following aspects: Tibiofemoral OA, patellofemoral OA, trochlear dysplasia (Dejour classification), patellar height (Insall-Salvati index [ISI]; Patellotrochlear index [PTI]), and position of the tibial tuberosity (TT-TG and TT-PCL distance).

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients (61% female) with a mean age of 48 ± 13 years could be included. Fifteen patients (37%) were considered failures, with 5 patients (12%) revised to TKA and 10 patients (24%) not achieving MCID for WOMAC total or VAS pain. Failures had a significantly higher ISI, and a significantly lower PTI. Furthermore, the proportion of patients with a pathologic ISI (> 1.2), a pathologic PTI (< 0.28), and without trochlear dysplasia were significantly higher in failures. Significantly greater improvements in clinical outcome scores were observed in patients with a higher preoperative grade of patellofemoral OA, ISI ≤ 1.2, PTI ≥ 0.28, TT-PCL distance ≤ 21 mm, and a dysplastic trochlea.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative patellofemoral anatomy is significantly associated with clinical improvement and failure rate after isolated inlay PFA. Less improvement and a higher failure rate must be expected in patients with patella alta (ISI > 1.2 and PTI < 0.28), absence of trochlear dysplasia, and a lateralized position of the tibial tuberosity (TT-PCL distance > 21 mm). Concomitant procedures such as tibial tuberosity transfer may, therefore, be considered in such patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

Replacement for patellofemoral arthritis

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) is relatively common, affecting 24% females and 11% males over the age of 55 years. Most patients can be treated conservatively. Arthroplasty remains the ultimate procedure for end stage PFOA. Debate continues as to whether total knee replacement (TKR) or patellofemoral replacement (PFR) is better for this group of patients. The aim of this article is to review the current evidence for use of these two procedures in this condition.

METHODS

Recent meta-analyses, systematic reviews and appropriate cohort publications concerning surgical management of PFOA were sourced. A cohort of patients from the authors' own institution was also reviewed. An instructional lecture was then created and delivered at the British Association for Surgery of the Knee 2019 annual conference, on behalf of the British Patellofemoral Society. This article has been written based on this lecture.

RESULTS

It is clear that PFOA is a different disease process than tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (TFOA). There is no doubt that PFR has a higher failure rate than TKR, but evidence suggests that outcomes and recovery may be better in the PFR group. This is complicated by subsets of those with PFOA faring better than others, the reasons for which are likely to be multifactorial.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PFR and TKR may be used appropriately for PFOA. In keeping with a shared decision-making process, patients should be counselled appropriately preoperatively when deciding between these procedures. Further research is required to understand the differences in outcome between procedures and in subsets of patients with PFOA.

Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty-registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review

Background and purpose - Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has been debated since early studies showed poor implant survival. Recent studies show better results. This review reports failure modes for PFA and investigates differences in data reported from registries and clinical studies. Additionally, we report differences in failure modes among implant designs. Methods - A systematic search was performed in September 2018. All studies and registers describing failure modes of PFA were included and implant design was noted for each revision. Results - This review includes 1,299 revisions of a primary PFA reported in 47 clinical studies and 3 registers. The failure modes were: 42% OA progression, 16% pain, 13% aseptic loosening, 12% surgical error, 4% wear, 2% infection, 2% broken patellar component, 1% stiffness, 1% fracture, and 7% other. The data from registries and cohort studies differed statistically significantly in 7 out of 12 failure modes. Significant differences were found in several failure modes among implant designs. Interpretation - OA progression is the most common failure mode of PFA. There are significant differences in data on failure modes between registers and protocolled studies, notably for surgical error. The implant design significantly influences several of the failure modes. In conclusion, indication, surgical technique, and implant design are important for a successful PFA, and register-based failure modes should be interpreted with caution.

Patient satisfaction reporting for patellofemoral arthroplasty is significantly lacking: a systematic review

Background: Patellofemoral Arthroplasty (PFA) has been shown to be successful in restoring knee function and quality of life in patients with the isolated patellofemoral disease. Patient satisfaction has been suggested as an indicator of the quality of elective orthopedic operations, although there remains no standardized method to collect and evaluate satisfaction. The present study offers a systematic review of the available literature concerning patient satisfaction following PFA to assess common methodologies for reporting patient satisfaction. Methods: A query of the Medline database produced 116 articles that were reviewed for inclusion in the review. The following inclusion criteria were used to identify suitable articles: English language, clinical outcomes study related to PFA, and patient-reported satisfaction as an outcome measure. Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria and were eligible for review. The highest level of evidence was level-III. The study publication dates ranged from 2009 to 2016, with six published in 2015 & 2016. In total, 320 PFAs were performed on 267 patients. Four articles reported the proportion of included patients who had previous knee surgeries (range: 20-60%). Three studies used ordinal scales to rate patient satisfaction. Four studies (57.1%) reported the numeric proportion of patients satisfied following PFA, which ranged from 76% to 96.5%. Two studies used Visual Analog Scale methods. For these two studies, one of them reported the mean satisfaction score as 7.5/10, and the other reported a median of 90/100. Conclusions: The available literature on patient satisfaction after PFA was found to be limited, with low-quality evidence and variable methodology.

Early outcomes of an anatomic trochlear-cutting patellofemoral arthroplasty: patient selection is key

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report outcomes of a recent anatomic trochlear-cutting patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) system at > 3 years. The hypothesis was that its functional scores and revision rates would be at least equivalent to those reported for other 'trochlear-cutting' implants in the literature.

METHODS

Twenty-eight consecutive patients that had received PFA using the same anatomic trochlear-cutting implant (KneeTech PFJ, Corin-Tornier, Montbonnot, France) with a dome-shaped patellar button and had systematic lateral facetectomy without lateral release were enrolled. Radiographic parameters collected pre-operatively included: trochlear dysplasia type and patellar height, TT-TG, patellar tilt and shape. Clinical scores collected pre-operatively and at > 3 years included: Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Knee Society Score (KSS).

RESULTS

The initial cohort comprised 23 women (82%) and five men (18%), aged 63.3 ± 14.7 years, of which 23 had trochlear dysplasia (82%). One patient (4%) could not be reached, and three (11%) were revised to TKA due to arthritic progression, aged 77, 80 and 83 years at index operation, only one of which had trochlear dysplasia (type A). At final follow-up, none of the remaining 24 patients had complications; their OKS was 35.0 ± 10.3 and KSS symptoms and function were 19.8 ± 5.0 and 71.7 ± 13.6.

CONCLUSION

The anatomic trochlear-cutting PFA granted satisfactory scores and prevented mechanical complications, but the high incidence of early revisions, all due to spread of arthritis hence to improper patient selection. PFA should be restricted to patients with trochlear dysplasia, in whom arthritis was triggered by patellar instability and maltracking rather than degenerative or age-related diseases.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Similar postoperative patient-reported outcome in both second generation patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty for treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Due to inconsistent results and high failure rates, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is more often used to treat isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) despite the theoretical advantage of patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA). It is perceived that second-generation PFA may have improved the outcomes of surgery. In this systematic review, the primary aim was to compare outcomes of second-generation PFA and TKA by assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

A systematic search was made in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and MeSH to identify studies using second-generation PFA implants or TKA for treatment of PFOA. Only studies using The American Knee Society (AKSS), The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) or The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) to report on PROMs were included.

RESULTS

The postoperative weighted mean AKSS knee scores were 88.6 in the second-generation PFA group and 91.8 in the TKA group. The postoperative weighted mean AKSS function score was 79.5 in the second-generation PFA group and 86.4 in the TKA group. There was no significant difference in the mean AKSS knee or function scores between the second-generation PFA group and the TKA group. The postoperative weighted mean OKS score was 36.7 and the postoperative weighted mean WOMAC score was 24.4. The revision rate was higher in the second-generation PFA group (113 revisions [8.4%]) than in the TKA group (3 revisions [1.3%]). Progression of OA was most commonly noted as the reason for revision of PFA, and it was noted in 60 cases [53.1%]; this was followed by pain in 33 cases [29.2%].

CONCLUSION

Excellent postoperative weighted mean AKSS knee scores were found in both the second-generation PFA group and in the TKA group, suggesting that both surgical options can result in a satisfying patient-reported outcome. Higher revision rates in the second-generation PFA studies may in part be due to challenges related to patient selection. Based on evaluation of PROMs, the use of second-generation PFA seems to be an equal option to TKA for treatment of isolated PFOA in appropriately selected patients. Hopefully, this can be considered by physicians in their daily clinical work.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Patellofemoral Arthroplasty

Background

The first report of patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) was published in 1979¹. Reviews in 2005 and 2007^2,3 called for studies comparing PFA with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. A blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was initiated in 2007 for this purpose, and the first report with 2-year results was awarded the Mark Coventry Award of the Knee Society in 2017⁴. It was found that (1) patients recover more quickly from PFA than from TKA; (2) during the first 2 years after surgery, PFA-treated patients have better average knee function than TKA-treated patients; and (3) PFA-treated patients regain their preoperative range of movement within the first postoperative year whereas TKA-treated patients do not regain it within the first 2 years⁴.

Description

There are general principles that are common to all brands of PFA implants. These include (1) an indication based on bone-on-bone contact in the patellofemoral joint with a preserved tibiofemoral joint; (2) replacing all surfaces of the patellofemoral joint, with metal on the femoral side and polyethylene on the patellar side; (3) ensuring a smooth transition from normal articular cartilage to the trochlear component; and (4) creating normal patellofemoral tracking.

Alternatives

The primary treatment of any degenerative condition should be nonoperative, but when such measures are insufficient surgical treatment may be indicated. Many procedures have been suggested for relieving patellofemoral pain, but if there is bone-on-bone contact in the patellofemoral joint, the only current surgical option (except for experimental treatments) is joint replacement-i.e., either PFA or TKA.

Rationale

Our general principle for joint replacement of the knee is to replace only the affected compartment if unicompartmental changes are found. If ≥2 compartments are affected, we perform TKA. This principle is challenged both by proponents of performing TKA in all cases of knee osteoarthritis and by proponents of bicompartmental knee replacement for 2-compartment disease. The 2-year results of our blinded RCT comparing PFA and TKA⁴ support our current practice of PFA. In our practice, we have found PFA to be a rewarding procedure when the correct indications are used. PFA is likely to remain a fairly rare procedure, but any knee arthroplasty center should be able to offer it.

Randomized clinical trial of medial unicompartmentel versus total knee arthroplasty for anteromedial tibio-femoral osteoarthritis. The study-protocol

BACKGROUND

In treatment of isolated medial unicondylar osteoarthritis of the knee, it is possible to choose between medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (mUKA), or a total knee prosthesis (TKA). The demand for a blinded multicenter RCT with the comparison of mUKA and TKA has been increasing in recent years, to determine which prosthesis is better. Supporters of TKA suggest this treatment gives a more predictable and better result, whereas supporters of UKA suggest it is unnecessary to remove functional cartilage in other compartments. If the mUKA is worn or loosens, revision surgery will be relatively easy, whereas revision-surgery after a TKA can be more problematic.

METHODS

A double-blinded multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial setup is the aim of the study. 6 hospitals throughout all 5 municipal regions of Denmark will be participating in the study. 350 patients will be included prospectively. Follow-up will be with PROM-questionnaires and clinical controls up to 20 years.

DISCUSSION

Results will be assessed in terms of 1) PROM-questionnaires, 2) Clinical assessment of knee condition, 3) cost analysis. To avoid bias, all participants except the theatre-staff will be blinded.

PROMS

OKS, KOOS, SF36, Forgotten Joint Score, EQ5D, UCLA activity scale, Copenhagen Knee ROM scale, and Anchor questions. Publications are planned at 2, 5 and 10 years after inclusion of the last patient. The development of variables over time will be analyzed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) for the variable relative to the initial value, and comparisons of the between-group differences will be based on parametric statistics. In this study, we feel that we have designed a study that will address these concerns with a well-designed double-blinded multicentre RCT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03396640 . Initial Release: 09/19/2017. Date of enrolment of first participant: 10/11/17.

Hermes patellofemoral arthroplasty: Annual revision rate and clinical results after two to 20 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an alternative to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with severe isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. The main goal of this study was to determine the revision rate of the Hermes™ (Ceraver) anatomical unconstrained PFA.

METHODS

A retrospective single surgeon study was performed including all patients operated for PFA between 1997 and 2015. A standardized procedure was used to perform PFA with one type of prosthesis. All patients in the study were contacted at the final follow-up. The main judgment criterion was the annual rate of revision. Secondary criteria were the severity of anterior knee pain on a numerical scale (0-10) and functional scores (IKS and AKP scores).

RESULTS

During this period, PFA was performed in 64 patients (74 PFA), 52 women/12 men, mean age at surgery 59.6 ± 11.8 (31.3-82.1) years old. Four patients (5.4% of PFA) were lost to follow-up. Mean follow-up for the remaining 70 PFA was 7.5 ± 7.1 (2-20) years. TKA was required in 10 (14.3%) patients after a mean 5.4 ± 3.4 (1-9.3) years. The annual rate of revision was two-percent CI_95% [1.1-3.7%] if TKA was considered to be the defining event and 3.1% CI_95% [1.9-5.1%] for all types of revision (partial/total PFA replacement or TKA). Patients who underwent revision were significantly younger. After a mean eight (2-20) years of follow-up, mean anterior pain, the IKS and AKP scores improved significantly.

CONCLUSION

In this series, 78.6% of patients with a Hermes™ PFA did not require any revision after a follow-up of between two and 20 years.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV - retrospective study.

Return to the operating room after patellofemoral arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral arthritis-a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are accepted treatments for end-stage isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA). However, complications and re-operations have historically differed between the two procedures. We performed a systematic review to report on the re-operation rates between TKA and modern PFA for isolated PFOA.

METHODS

Systematically identified publications reporting on patients that underwent either TKA or modern PFA for isolated PFOA were reviewed. Meta-analysis software was used to screen potential articles with at least one year follow-up that detailed reasons for re-operation. Data was extracted and analyzed for all re-operations. Survival of the implant was used as the primary outcome; return to the operating room (OR) for any reason was used as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

The weighted rate of either conversion or revision arthroplasty in the PFA group and the TKA group was 6.34 and 0.11, respectively. The weighted rate of return to the OR for bony and soft tissue procedures was 1.06 and 0.79, respectively. The weighted rate of manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) was 0.32 and 1.23, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients who undergo PFA may be more likely to return to the operating room for conversion to TKA and/or revision surgery than those who undergo TKA.

Patellofemoral arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty for patients with patellofemoral osteoarthritis: equal function and satisfaction but higher revision rate for partial arthroplasty at a minimum eight years’ follow-up

AIMS

The primary aim of this study was to compare the knee-specific functional outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the management of patients with patellofemoral osteoarthritis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 54 consecutive Avon patellofemoral arthroplasties were identified and propensity-score-matched to a group of 54 patients undergoing a TKA with patellar resurfacing for patellofemoral osteoarthritis. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), and patient satisfaction were collected at a mean follow up of 9.2 years (8 to 15). Survival was defined by revision or intention to revise.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the mean OKS (p > 0.60) or SF-12 scores (p > 0.28) between the groups. There was a lower rate of satisfaction at the final follow-up for the TKA group (78% vs 87%) but this was not statistically significant (odds ratio 0.56, p = 0.21). Length of stay was significantly shorter (p = 0.008) for the Avon group (difference 1.8 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to 3.2). The ten-year survival for the Avon group was 92.3% (95% CI 87.1 to 97.5) and for the TKA group was 100% (95% CI 93.8 to 100). This difference was not statistically significant (log-rank test, p = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing an Avon patellofemoral arthroplasty have a shorter length of stay, and a functional outcome and rate of satisfaction that is equal to that of TKA. The benefits of the Avon arthroplasty need to be balanced against the increased rate of revision when compared with TKA.

Knee replacement

Knee replacement surgery is one of the most commonly done and cost-effective musculoskeletal surgical procedures. The numbers of cases done continue to grow worldwide, with substantial variation in utilisation rates across regions and countries. The main indication for surgery remains painful knee osteoarthritis with reduced function and quality of life. The threshold for intervention is not well defined, and is influenced by many factors including patient and surgeon preference. Most patients have a very good clinical outcome after knee replacement, but multiple studies have reported that 20% or more of patients do not. So despite excellent long-term survivorship, more work is required to enhance this procedure and development is rightly focused on increasing the proportion of patients who have successful pain relief after surgery. Changing implant design has historically been a target for improving outcome, but there is greater recognition that improvements can be achieved by better implantation methods, avoiding complications, and improving perioperative care for patients, such as enhanced recovery programmes. New technologies are likely to advance future knee replacement care further, but their introduction must be regulated and monitored with greater rigour to ensure patient safety.