Early outcomes of patient-specific posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty implants

No clinical advantage with customized individually made implants over conventional off-the-shelf implants in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed with either conventional off-the-shelf (OTS) or customized individually-made (CIM) implants. The evidence for CIM implants is limited and variable, and the aim of this review was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between CIM and OTS implants.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting on clinical, radiological, or alignment outcomes for CIM and OTS implants were selected. The studies were appraised using the Methodical index for non-randomized studies tool.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies comprised 2856 CIM and 1877 OTS TKAs. Revision rate was higher with CIM (5.9%) compared to OTS (3.7%) implants [OR 1.23(95% CI 0.69-2.18)]. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) was higher in CIM (2.2%) compared to OTS (1.1%) group [OR 2.95(95% CI 0.95-9.13)] and complications rate was higher in CIM (5%) vs. OTS (4.5%) [OR 1.45(95% CI 0.53-3.96)] but neither reached statistical significance. Length of stay was significantly shorter in CIM group 2.9 days vs. 3.5 days [MD - 0.51(95% CI - 0.82 to - 0.20)]. Knee Society Score showed no difference between CIM and OTS groups for Knee 90.5 vs. 90.6 [MD - 0.27(95% CI - 4.27 to 3.73)] and Function 86.1 vs. 83.1 [MD 1.51(95% CI - 3.69 to 6.70)].

CONCLUSION

CIM implants in TKA have theoretical benefits over OTS prostheses. However, in this present review, CIM implants were associated with higher revisions, MUA, and overall complication rates. There was no difference in outcome score and CIM implants did not improve overall target alignment; however, more CIM TKAs were found to be in the HKA target zone compared to OTS TKAs. The findings of this review do not support the general utilization of CIM over OTS implants in TKA.

Patient specific implants versus conventional implants in primary total knee arthroplasty: No significant difference in patient reported outcomes at 5 years

Background

Patient specific implants (PSI) represent a novel innovation aimed to improve patient satisfaction and function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, longitudinal patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PSI are not well described. We sought to primarily evaluate PROMs of patients undergoing TKA with either PSI or off-the-shelf (OTS) implants at mid-term follow-up.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on a prospectively collected cohort of 43 primary, cruciate-retaining TKAs performed with PSI (n = 23) and OTS implants (n = 20) by a single surgeon. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, range of motion (ROM) return, reoperations, and outcomes [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) T-score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), and Knee Society Score-Function (KSS-F)] were compared. Mean follow-up was 5 years.

Results

TKA performed with either PSI and OTS implants demonstrated no difference in obtaining ROM by 3 months (extension 3° short of full extension vs. 0°, p = 0.16) or flexion (114° vs. 115°, p = 0.99) and final ROM was identical [0° extension to 120° flexion (p = 1)]. Although not significant (p = 0.42), 5 (22%) PSI TKA and 2 (10%) OTS implant patients required manipulation under anesthesia. KSS-F and PROMIS T-scores were higher in the PSI versus OTS TKA patients, respectively (90 vs. 73, p = 0.002; 51.6 vs. 44.5, p = 0.01). However, after multivariable analysis, none of these continuous outcome measures were significantly different (p = 0.28 for KSS and p = 0.45 for PROMIS T-score) between the groups.

Conclusion

In a series of TKAs performed with PSI, no difference existed in postoperative ROM, reoperations, or patient-reported outcomes compared to OTS implants at 5 years. Surgeons may utilize the equivocal midterm results during TKA preoperative patient discussion of implant technologies.

Custom total knee arthroplasty combined with personalised alignment grants 94% patient satisfaction at minimum follow-up of 2 years

PURPOSE

The purpose was to report detailed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction rates for computed tomography (CT)-based custom TKA at minimum follow-up of 2 years. The hypothesis was that custom TKA combined with 'personalised alignment' would yield equivalent or better PROMs compared to values reported in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on off-the-shelf (OTS) TKA.

METHODS

Of an initial cohort of 150 custom TKAs, four died (unrelated to surgery), one required a revision, and five refused participation, leaving 140 patients for analysis. Patients completed pre- and post-operative PROMs (Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC)) as well as overall level of satisfaction. Proportions that attained a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were calculated for OKS and FJS. Clinical findings were compared to the average scores reported for PROMs in recent systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses on OTS TKA. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the clinical findings as means, standard deviations (SD) and ranges, or numbers and percentages.

RESULTS

At mean follow-up 33.5 ± 4.5 months, 94% (135/143) were either satisfied or very satisfied. Proportions that achieved PASS were 89% for OKS (120/135), and 85% for FJS (118/139). Median OKS, WOMAC and KOOS Symptoms and Pain scores were all within the 4th quartile of medians reported in systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum follow-up of two years following custom TKA combined with 'personalised alignment', 94% of patients were either satisfied or very satisfied, and the PASS criteria were achieved in 89% for OKS and 85% for FJS, all of which compare favourably to published outcomes of OTS TKA. Direct comparisons to the literature may not be appropriate, however, considering the heterogeneity of patient demographics and alignment techniques. Randomised controlled trials with sufficient statistical power are needed to corroborate these findings and generalise them to unselected TKA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective cohort study.

Custom TKA combined with personalised coronal alignment yield improvements that exceed KSS substantial clinical benefits

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report Knee Society Scores (KSS) at 12-month follow-up in a series of 266 knees that received custom TKA. The hypothesis was that custom TKA combined with personalised alignment would yield improvements greater than substantial clinical benefits (SCB) of KSS Knee and Function.

METHODS

From a consecutive series of 905 patients (918 knees) that received primary TKAs, 261 (29%) patients (266 knees) received computed tomography (CT)-based posterior-stabilised cemented custom TKA. Knees were aligned aiming to preserve or restore constitutional alignment within predetermined limits of 85°-95° for femoral mechanical angle (FMA) and tibial mechanical angle (TMA), and 175°-183° for hip knee ankle (HKA) angle. The KSS Knee and Function were collected preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively, to determine if patients achieved SCB. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to determine associations between KSS scores (Knee and Function) and patient demographics as well as pre- and postoperative radiographic alignments.

RESULTS

Of the initial cohort of 261 patients, 4 (1.8%) were reoperated for patellar resurfacing, 1 (0.4%) for lavage to treat infection, and 1 (0.4%) had arthroscopy to treat a stiff knee with < 90° range of motion. Complete clinical records were available for 227 patients (232 knees, 87%) that comprised 102 men (5 bilateral) and 125 women. At 12-month follow-up, mean improvements in KSS Knee and Function scores were, respectively, 61.0 ± 13.0 and 42.7 ± 16.7, which exceeded the SCB of KSS. Comparison of knees inside versus outside the target zone revealed no differences in KSS Knee (94.1 ± 9.1 versus 94.3 ± 9.0, n.s.) and Function (96.1 ± 9.2 versus 96.3 ± 8.9, n.s.). Multivariable analysis revealed worse KSS Knee in knees with preoperative FMA > 95° (β = - 6.21; p = 0.023), but no association between KSS Function and patient demographics or pre- and postoperative radiographic alignments.

CONCLUSIONS

Custom TKA combined with personalised alignment yielded improvements that exceeded substantial clinical benefits of KSS Knee and Function scores. These findings demonstrate the feasibility of custom TKA with 'personalised alignment' and encourage further investigations using comparative studies at longer follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Custom TKA: what to expect and where do we stand today?

INTRODUCTION

The concept of custom total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is explored with specific attention to current limitations. Arguments in favor of custom TKA are the anatomic and functional variability we encounter in our patients. The biggest conceptual challenge is to marry the need for correction of deformity with the ambition to stay as close as possible to original anatomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Pubmed search was performed on the following terms: 'patient specific implant', 'custom made implant', 'custom implant', 'total knee arthroplasty' and 'total knee replacement'. These studies were evaluated for the following intra- and post-operative variables: blood loss, hospital stay, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, limb and implant alignment, implant fit, tibiofemoral kinematics, complications and revision rates.

RESULTS

Out of 1117 studies found with the initial search, a total of 17 articles were included in the final analysis. In eight out of the 17 (47%) studies, either the research was commercially funded or one of the authors had a conflict of interest related to the work. 11 out of 17 studies included a control group in their study setup. Of those studies that included a control group, both superior and inferior results compared to off-the-shelf implants have been reported.

CONCLUSION

Custom knee implants are the next step in matching the geometric features of the prosthesis to the anatomy of the individual patient, after several iterations that added asymmetry and sizes in the existing implants. Several companies have proven that it is feasible to produce these implants in a safe way. An overview of current literature reveals the lack of strong methodological studies that prove the value of this new technology. Custom knee implants face conceptual and practical difficulties, some of which might be overcome with technological advances, such as robotics and artificial intelligence.

No significant difference in early clinical outcomes of custom versus off-the-shelf total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to collect, synthesise and critically appraise findings of clinical studies that report outcomes of custom total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis was that, compared to off-the-shelf (OTS) TKA, custom TKA would yield better surgical, clinical and radiographic outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). On 8 February 2021, two authors independently searched and screened articles using MEDLINE®, Embase® and the Cochrane Library without restriction on date of publication. Findings from eligible articles were narratively synthesised and tabulated, and when ≥ 3 comparative studies reported the same outcome, results were pooled and summarised in forest plots. Quality assessments of the studies were done according to the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists.

RESULTS

A total of 15 articles were eligible for data extraction, of which 9 were case-control studies reporting on 929 custom versus 998 OTS TKA, 5 were case series reporting on results of 587 custom TKA, and 1 was a cross-sectional study reporting on results of 44 custom versus 132 OTS TKA. Five studies that compared early revision rates found the overall effect in favour of OTS TKA (odds ratio (OR), 0.4; p = n.s.) but the result did not reach statistical significance. Four studies found no statistically significant difference in KSS knee (standardised mean difference (SMD), - 0.10; p = n.s.) and function (SMD, 0.03; p = n.s.), and five studies found no statistically significant difference in range of motion (SMD, 0.02; p = n.s.). One study that compared bone-implant fit between custom and three OTS tibial components found no overhang but revealed under-coverage of up to 18% in knees with custom tibial baseplates.

CONCLUSION

Custom TKA demonstrated no significant benefits compared to OTS TKA in terms of pooled clinical outcomes, but had considerably higher early revision rates. The findings of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest the need for studies with better comparable groups and standardisation of reporting outcomes amongst studies, that could increase the quality of evidence and enable pooling of results in future meta-analyses.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes after Knee Arthroplasty with Patient-Specific versus Off-the-Shelf Knee Implants: A Systematic Review

Customised, patient-specific implants (PSI) manufactured based on computed tomography data are intended to improve the clinical outcome by restoring more natural knee kinematics as well as providing a better fit and a more precise positioning. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effect of these PSI on the clinical and radiological outcome compared to standard, off-the-shelf (OTS) implants. Thirteen comparative studies including a total of 2127 knee implants were identified. No significant differences in clinical outcome assessed with the range of motion, the Knee Society Score (KSS), and the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) were found between PSI and OTS implants. PSI showed fewer outliers from the neutral limb axis and a better implant fit and positioning. Whether these radiological differences lead to long-term advantages in terms of implant survival cannot be answered based on the current data. Patients receiving PSI could be discharged home earlier at the same or at an even lower total cost. The effective overall superiority of PSI has yet to be proven in long-term studies.

Custom Implants in TKA Provide No Substantial Benefit in Terms of Outcome Scores, Reoperation Risk, or Mean Alignment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Failure to accurately replicate the native anatomy and biomechanics of the knee has been suggested to contribute to dissatisfaction after TKA. Custom implants promise a personalized surgical approach, with the aim of improving patient satisfaction and pain as well as lowering revision rates. However, some published research on custom TKA implants has found no clinically important improvements in postoperative validated outcomes scores, risks of revision or reoperation, and implant alignment. In the interest of helping to settle this controversy, a systematic review seems warranted.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

In this systematic review, we asked whether custom implants result in clinically important improvements over conventional off-the-shelf implants for anatomically uncomplicated primary TKA in terms of (1) validated outcomes scores, (2) the risk of revision or reoperation, and (3) implant alignment.

METHODS

The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched to identify publications from the past 10 years relevant to this review. Publications that compared the clinical outcome measures, number of revisions and reoperations, and radiological assessment of implant alignment of custom and standard implants with validated endpoints were eligible for inclusion. In the interest of capturing as much potentially relevant information as possible, we applied no requirement for minimum follow-up duration. Clinical outcomes were assessed using patient-reported outcome (PROM) scores including the Knee Society Score (KSS), Forgotten Joint Score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. The risk for revision or reoperation were evaluated by the number of early and late manipulations, debridement procedures, and replacement of one or more components. Implant alignment was compared using postoperative deviation from the neutral (0°) mechanical axis of the limb and each component and the posterior tibial slope. All qualified studies were retrospective, and all compared custom implants with standard implants. Data on 1510 patients were reviewed (749 with custom implants and 761 with off-the-shelf implants). The mean follow-up time ranged from 12 to 33 months.

RESULTS

There was no apparent advantage to custom implants in terms of PROM scores. Of the five studies evaluating clinical outcomes, only one reported better KSS-Function scores at 3 months; two reported no difference, and two found inferior KSS scores. In several studies, custom implants were associated with more frequent reoperations than standard implants. Although in general there were no differences between custom and standard implants in terms of mean coronal plane limb alignment, one of seven studies found that the proportion of patients whose alignment was outside ± 3° from the neutral axis in the coronal plane was lower in the custom group than in the standard group.

CONCLUSION

With generally poorer outcomes scores for pain and function, generally higher risks of reoperation and reintervention, and no overall benefit to alignment, custom implants for primary TKA for the general population currently appear to be inferior to standard implants. Whether the slight reduction in the proportion of patients with alignment outliers observed in a minority of studies will result in a substantial reduction in revision risk over time must be addressed by future studies. However, until or unless such a reduction is proven, we recommend against the routine use of custom implants in practice because of increased costs and the risks associated with their novelty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Customised, individually made total knee arthroplasty shows promising 1-year clinical and patient reported outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Customised individually made (CIM) implants for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were introduced about 10 years ago. These implants aim to reduce the risk of prosthesis-related issues resulting from anthropometric differences between different knees. The purpose of this study was to analyse the short-term clinical outcome and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of a specific CIM implant, the ORIGIN^® knee replacement system (Symbios, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland), which was introduced in 2018.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary posterior-stabilised (PS) CIM TKA using the specific ORIGIN^® knee replacement system, (Symbios, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland). TKAs were performed from February 2019 to October 2020. Data was collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 4 and 12 months. Outcome measures included the objective part of the Knee Society Score (KSS) with the range of motion (ROM) and the following PROMs: the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12), the EuroQol, five dimensions, three levels (EQ-5D-3L) with the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and patient satisfaction. Differences in pre- to preoperative data were assessed with paired sample t tests. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Twenty-five CIM TKA (20 patients, 8 female) were included. The mean age at surgery was 66 years (SD, 6.9). At 4 and 12 months, significant improvements in the KSS (p < 0.001), the ROM (p < 0.001), all KOOS subscales (p < 0.001), the FJS (p < 0.001) and the EQ-5D-3L (p < 0.026) were found. Satisfaction rate was 91% and 88% at 4 and 12 months, respectively. Intraoperative complications did not occur and no revision surgeries were undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrated significant improvements in the KSS and specific PROMs 1 year after CIM TKA. This study suggests that CIM TKA is a safe and suitable option, which can yield good clinical outcome and PROMs at least during short-term follow-up.

Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis. Patient reported-outcome measures (PROMs) capture the patients' perception of the success of an intervention. The minimal important difference (MID) is an important characteristic of the PROM, which helps to interpret results. The aim of this study was to identify the MID for the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index.

METHODS

Data were collected in a prospective cohort study. Patients were asked to complete the FJS-12, WOMAC osteoarthritis index and transition items evaluating change over time to determine the MID. We employed an anchor-based methodology relating score change to the response categories of the transition items using both binary logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

Data from 199 patients were analysed. Mean age was 72.3 years, 58% were women. Employing binary logistic regression the MID for the FJS-12 was 10.8 points, for the WOMAC pain score 7.5 points and for the WOMAC function score 7.2 points. ROC analyses found a MID of 13.0 points for the FJS-12, 12.5 points for WOMAC pain and 14.7 points for WOMAC function.

CONCLUSION

We report MIDs for the FJS-12 and the WOMAC Pain and Function scales in a TKA patient cohort, which can be used to interpret meaningful differences in score. In line with previous research, we found more advanced statistical methods to result in smaller MID estimates for both scores.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Written consent for this study was obtained from all participants and ethical approval was granted by the local ethics committee (Ethikkommission St. Gallen; EKSG 14/973; Registered 03 July 2014; http://www.sg.ch/home/gesundheit/ethikkommission.html).

Biomechanical and Clinical Effect of Patient-Specific or Customized Knee Implants: A Review

(1) Background: Although knee arthroplasty or knee replacement is already an effective clinical treatment, it continues to undergo clinical and biomechanical improvements. For an increasing number of conditions, prosthesis based on an individual patient's anatomy is a promising treatment. The aims of this review were to evaluate the clinical and biomechanical efficacy of patient-specific knee prosthesis, explore its future direction, and summarize any published comparative studies. (2) Methods: We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus databases for articles published prior to February 1, 2020, with the keywords "customized knee prosthesis" and "patient-specific knee prosthesis". We excluded patient-specific instrument techniques. (3) Results: Fifty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. In general, clinical improvement was greater with a patient-specific knee prosthesis than with a conventional knee prosthesis. In addition, patient-specific prosthesis showed improved biomechanical effect than conventional prosthesis. However, in one study, patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty showed a relatively high rate of aseptic loosening, particularly femoral component loosening, in the short- to medium-term follow-up. (4) Conclusions: A patient-specific prosthesis provides a more accurate resection and fit of components, yields significant postoperative improvements, and exhibits a high level of patient satisfaction over the short to medium term compared with a conventional prosthesis. However, the tibial insert design of the current patient-specific knee prosthesis does not follow the tibial plateau curvature.