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

Postoperative Intravenous Iron Supplementation Increases Hemoglobin Level in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Iron supplementation provides iron storage and facilitates effective production of hemoglobin. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of early postoperative intravenous (IV) iron supplementation in different types of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 863 patients who underwent TKA between September 2017 and September 2021. The IV iron (I) and non-IV iron (NI) groups were compared. Hemoglobin responders, defined as patients who showed a change in hemoglobin level of ≥2 g/dL at 6 weeks of surgery compared to the baseline immediate postoperative hemoglobin level, were identified and they were compared with the nonresponders. After logistic regression analysis, the patients were classified according to the type of surgery (unilateral TKA, staged bilateral TKA, and simultaneous bilateral TKA). A subgroup analysis was performed according to the comorbidity as Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). The type of surgery and the rate of hemoglobin responders differed between the I and NI groups. The surgery type and iron supplementation significantly affected the hemoglobin responder in the logistic regression model. In each surgery type, hemoglobin drop in the I group was generally lower in the second and sixth weeks than that in the NI group. It was also effective in reducing hemoglobin drop on the first day of the second surgery in staged bilateral TKA. In addition, the number of hospital days was lower in the IV iron supplementation group who underwent a staged bilateral TKA. CCI did not affect hemoglobin responder, hemoglobin drop, and transfusion rate in both the I and NI groups. Postoperative IV iron supplementation affected the outcome of hemoglobin responders. In addition, it reduced early postoperative hemoglobin drop. However, iron supplementation did not affect the transfusion rate, complications, and clinical outcome, regardless of the type of surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  Level III, case-control study.

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.

Improved Knee Function with Customized vs. Off-the-Shelf TKA Implants-Results of a Single-Surgeon, Single-Center, Single-Blinded Study

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have been able to show certain benefits of Customized, Individually Made (CIM) compared to Off-the-Shelf (OTS) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), but evidence is still lacking regarding the benefits of these implant systems. This study aimed to find differences in scores and functional outcome by comparing CIM and OTS implants, using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and functional tests for activities of daily living in a single-surgeon setup.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients (16 CIM vs. 32 OTS) were consecutively enrolled and blindly examined. Functional testing was performed using four timed functional tests (TUG, WALK, TUDS, and BBS) and the VAS for pain. The Aggregated Locomotor Function (ALF) score was then calculated based on the addition of the average times of the three functional tests.

RESULTS

The CIM group showed significantly faster times in all functional tests and significantly better ALF scores. There were remarkable differences in the assessment of maximum pain sensation between the two groups, with superiority in the CIM group. The PROMs analysis revealed a higher proportion of excellent and good ratings for the items objective and function (KSS) in the CIM group.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that time-limited activities of daily living (ADLs) can be completed significantly faster with a CIM prosthesis and that a significantly higher percentage in this group reports freedom from pain during certain loads. Partial aspects of the PROM scores are also better in this group; however, this superiority could not be shown with regard to most PROM scores collected in this study.

Three-Dimensional Printed Knee Implants: Insights into Surgeons' Points of View

Three-dimensional printing is a technology that has been developed and applied in several medical specialties, especially orthopedic surgery. Knee arthroplasty is the most commonly performed procedure. To fit the morphology of each knee, surgeons can choose between different standardized off-the-shelf implant sizes or opt for customized 3D-printed implants. However, routine adoption of the latter has been slow and faces several barriers. Existing studies focus on technical improvements or case studies and do not directly address the surgeon's perspective. Our study invited surgeons to express themselves freely and answer the question "What do you think about the manufacture of a prosthesis by 3D printing?". The questionnaire was completed by 90 surgeons. On average, they had more than 10 years of experience (52, 57.8% ± 10.2%), worked in public hospitals (54, 60% ± 10.1%), and performed between 0 and 100 prostheses per year (60, 66.7% ± 9.7%). They also reported not using planning software (47, 52.2% ± 9.7%), navigation systems, or robots (62, 68.9% ± 9.6%). Regarding the use of technological innovation, they agreed on the extra surgical time needed (67, 74.4% ± 9.0%). The answers obtained were classified according to two criteria: (i) opinions, and (ii) motivations. Among the respondents, 51 (70% ± 9.5%) had positive and 22 (30% ± 9.5%) had negative opinions about 3D printing. The motivations were distributed among seven categories (surgery, materials, costs, logistics, time, customization, and regulatory) and mainly related to "pre-surgery" and "post-surgery" concerns. Finally, the results showed that the use of navigation systems or robots may be associated with a more positive view of 3DP. The purpose of our study was to examine knee surgeons' perceptions of 3DP at a time of significant expansion of this technology. Our study showed that there was no opposition to its implementation, although some surgeons indicated that they were waiting for validated results. They also questioned the entire supply chain, including hospitals, insurance companies, and manufacturers. Although there was no opposition to its implementation, 3D printing is at a crucial point in its development and its full adoption will require advances in all areas of joint replacement.

Patient Specific Instruments and Patient Individual Implants—A Narrative Review

Joint arthroplasties are one of the most frequently performed standard operations worldwide. Patient individual instruments and patient individual implants represent an innovation that must prove its usefulness in further studies. However, promising results are emerging. Those implants seem to be a benefit especially in revision situations. Most experience is available in the field of knee and hip arthroplasty. Patient-specific instruments for the shoulder and upper ankle are much less common. Patient individual implants combine individual cutting blocks and implants, while patient individual instruments solely use individual cutting blocks in combination with off-the-shelf implants. This review summarizes the current data regarding the implantation of individual implants and the use of individual instruments.

Insufficient evidence to confirm benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the available literature and critically appraise current evidence on the functional and radiographic outcomes as well as reoperation and revision rates of custom partial knee arthroplasty, i.e., unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BKA), and patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and a protocol was registered with Prospero. On 25 May 2021, two authors independently searched and screened Level I-IV studies that reported on outcomes of custom partial knee arthroplasty using the databases of MEDLINE^®, EMBASE^®, and the Cochrane Library without restriction on date of publication. Findings from eligible articles were synthesised and tabulated, and quality assessments were done according to the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklists.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were eligible for data extraction, of which two comparative and four case series were on custom UKA (follow-up, 0-9 months), one comparative and five case series on custom BKA (follow-up, 0.25-72 months), and three case series on custom PFA (follow-up, 2-119 months). Three studies on custom UKA reported mean Knee Society Score (KSS) Knee of 86-94 and mean KSS Function of 94-95, and two studies on custom BKA reported mean KSS Knee of 90-94 and KSS function of 81, whereas one study on custom PFA reported KSS Knee of 91 and KSS Function of 89. Custom implants tended to have less bone-implant mismatch compared to off the shelf (OTS) implants. Revision rates were 3-25% for custom UKA (at 0-109 months), 3-5% for custom BKA (at 12-72 months), and 0-14% for custom PFA (at 2-119 months).

CONCLUSION

Due to the small number of comparative studies and lack of consistency in reported outcomes, it remains difficult to ascertain the benefits of custom partial knee arthroplasty. Anecdotal evidence suggests that, compared to OTS implants, custom implants result in less bone-implant mismatch and that 78-91% of patients are either satisfied or very satisfied after custom partial knee arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Finite Element Analysis for Pre-Clinical Testing of Custom-Made Knee Implants for Complex Reconstruction Surgery

In severe cases of total knee arthroplasty, where off-the-shelf implants are not suitable or available anymore (i.e., in cases with extended bone defects or periprosthetic fractures), custom-made knee implants represent one of the few remaining treatment options. Design verification and validation of such custom-made implants is very challenging. The aim of this study is to support surgeons and engineers in their decision on whether a developed design is suitable for the specific case. A novel method for the pre-clinical testing of custom-made knee implants is suggested, which relies on the biomechanical test and finite element analysis (FEA) of a comparable reference implant. The method comprises six steps: (1) identification of the main potential failure mechanism and its corresponding FEA quantity of interest, (2) reproduction of the biomechanical test of the reference implant via FEA, (3) identification of the maximum value of the corresponding FEA quantity of interest at the required load level, (4) definition of this value as the acceptance criterion for the FEA of the custom-made implant, (5) reproduction of the biomechanical test with the custom-made implant via FEA, (6) conclusion, whether the acceptance criterion is fulfilled or not. Two exemplary cases of custom-made knee implants were evaluated with this method. The FEA acceptance criterion derived from the reference implants was fulfilled in both custom-made implants. Subsequent biomechanical tests verified the FEA results. The suggested method allows a quantitative evaluation of the biomechanical properties of a custom-made knee implant without performing a biomechanical test with it. This represents an important contribution in the pre-clinical testing of custom-made implants in order to achieve a sustainable treatment of complex revision total knee arthroplasty patients in a timely manner.

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.