Joint Awareness after Patellofemoral Arthroplasty Evaluated with the Forgotten Joint Score: A Comparison Study

Current outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral arthritis - A narrative review

Patellofemoral (PFJ) arthritis can be primary, or secondary to underlying trochlea dysplasia and patellofemoral malalignment. Although primary PFJ osteoarthritis affects an older patient population, just like tibiofemoral arthritis, it is common for younger patients to present with isolated PFJ arthritis secondary to an abnormal PFJ. PFJ arthroplasty (PFJA) has many benefits including being less invasive, associated with lower blood loss, is more cost-effective, and leaves the kinematics of the tibiofemoral joint undisturbed. As a result, there are arguably better functional outcomes associated with PFJA, however the historical revision rate of this procedure is high. Although registry outcome data associated with the first generation of PFJ implants shows a higher revision rate compared to TKA, the comparison of PFJ outcomes with TKA is not always age-matched and there is limited comparison on functional and patient-reported outcomes, something which is more important and relevant in a younger patient cohort. Improvements in implant design, instrumentation, surgical technique, and better patient selection has now resulted in outcomes which are comparable to that of TKA, and in some cases even better. This narrative review outlines the current outcomes of PFJA including highlighting factors which need to be considered in optimising outcomes, as well as discussing advanced techniques of robotic assisted PFJA.

Outcomes of isolated patellofemoral arthroplasty

Osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral compartment can cause significant functional impairment. Isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis affects greater than 10% of males and females over the age of 60. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) was developed as a joint-preserving procedure that maintains natural knee kinematics in those with isolated patellofemoral disease. First-generation implants were fraught with complications, a high rate of revision, and early conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Second-generation implants have demonstrated significant improvements in patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates and implant survivorship. Factors that can affect outcomes include surgical indications, patient selection, and PFA prosthesis design. Modern PFA for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis has comparable outcomes to TKA for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. In this article, we discuss the use of PFA, implant design, the indications and factors affecting outcomes, and comparison to TKA.

Patellofemoral Arthroplasty

Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) as a treatment option for isolated patellofemoral disease continues to evolve. Enhancement in patient selection, surgical technique, implant design, and technology has led to improved short-term and midterm outcomes. Furthermore, in the setting of a younger patient with isolated patellofemoral arthritis, PFA represents an option for improved function with faster recovery times, bone preservation, maintenance of ligamentous proprioception, and the ability to delay total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The most common reason for revising PFA to a TKA is progression of tibiofemoral arthritis. In general, conversion of PFA to TKA leads to successful outcomes with minimal bone loss and the ability to use primary TKA implants and instrumentation. PFA seems to be a cost-effective alternative to TKA in appropriately selected patients with 5-, 10-PFA survivorships of 91.7% and 83.3%, respectively, and an annual revision rate of 2.18%; however, more long-term clinical studies are needed to determine how new designs and technologies affect patient outcomes and implant performance.

Modern Patellofemoral Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The ideal procedure for isolated patellofemoral arthritis is a controversial topic. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an option that aims to restore normal kinematics to the knee while preserving bone. PFA has been shown to have benefits compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in this patient population but has historically had a high failure rate. Revision rates are improving with modern implants and tight indications but still remain higher than TKA. This review summarizes current thinking around PFA using modern implants and techniques in 2023, provides an implant-specific analysis, and assesses how we can improve outcomes after PFA based on the current literature. The aim was to provide an outline of the evidence around PFA on which surgeons can make decisions to optimize patient outcome in this young and active population.

METHODS

Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for concepts of patellofemoral joint arthroplasty. After abstract and text review, a screening software was used to assess articles based on inclusion criteria for studies describing indications, outcomes, and techniques for isolated PFA using modern implants, with or without concomitant procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 191 articles were included for further examination, with 62 articles being instructional course lectures, systematic reviews, technique articles, narrative reviews, expert opinions, or meta-analyses. The remaining articles were case reports, trials, or cohort studies. Articles were used to create a thorough outline of multiple recurrent topics in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

PFA is an appealing option that has the potential to provide a more natural feeling and functioning knee for those with isolated PF arthritis. The high rate of revision is a cause for concern and there are several technical details that should be stressed to optimize results. The uncertain outcome after revision to TKA also requires more investigation. In addition, the importance of strict selection criteria and firm indications cannot be stressed enough to optimize longevity and attempt to predict those who are likely to have progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. The development of new third-generation implants is promising with excellent functional outcomes and a much lower rate of maltracking and implant complications compared with earlier generations. The impact of these implants and improvement in surgical techniques on the revision rate of PFA will be determined from longer-term outcomes.

Patellofemoral arthroplasty in combination with high tibial osteotomy can achieve good outcome for patients with medial-patellofemoral osteoarthritis

Background

The purpose of our study is to report on the clinical outcomes of patients who undergoing patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) in combination with a high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Due to this procedure's conservative and kinematics-preserving characteristics, we hypothesized that PFA in combination with HTO would result in good clinical outcomes in patients with medial and patellofemoral compartment osteoarthritis (MPFOA).

Methods

Patients who underwent PFA in combination with HTO for MPFOA from January 2018 to April 2020 were included in the study. Clinical outcomes were analyzed by comparing the Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, Range of Motion, and Forgotten Joint Score before and after the procedure. Radiological evaluations were also performed to assess the tibiofemoral osteoarthritis progression and implant loosening. For all tests, the value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of nine consecutive patients who underwent PFA in combination with HTO were included. Two were males, seven were females. The average follow-up period was 2.6 ± 0.4 years. Clinical outcomes showed a significant improvement in the Knee Society Score (clinical score: 90.3 ± 8.5 and function score: 90.8 ± 7.8), Oxford Knee Score (43.6 ± 3.6), Forgotten Joint Score (71.2 ± 10.2), and knee Range of Motion (130.4 ± 8.1°) at the final follow-up. Additionally, hip-knee-ankle angle significantly decreased from -9.3 ± 2.1° preoperatively to 2.2 ± 1.2° at the final follow-up (p < 0.05). There were no complications for any patient during the follow-up time.

Conclusion

This study shows that patients who underwent PFA in combination with HTO for the treatment of MPFOA achieved good clinical and radiological outcomes. This combined surgery could be an effective alternative to treat MPFOA in well-selected patients.

Patellofemoral Arthroplasty Results in Better Time-weighted Patient-reported Outcomes After 6 Years than TKA: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In a previous study, we reported the 2-year outcomes of a parallel-group, equivalence, randomized controlled trial (RCT; blinded for the first year) comparing patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) and TKA for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PF-OA). We found advantages of PFA over TKA for ROM and various aspects of knee-related quality of life (QOL) as assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Register data show increases in PFA revision rates from 2 to 6 years after surgery at a time when annual TKA revision rates are decreasing, which suggests rapidly deteriorating knee function in patients who have undergone PFA. We intended to examine whether the early advantages of PFA over TKA have deteriorated in our RCT and whether revision rates differ between the implant types in our study after 6 years of follow-up.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does PRO improvement during the first 6 postoperative years differ between patients who have undergone PFA and TKA? (2) Does the PRO improvement at 3, 4, 5, and 6 years differ between patients who have undergone PFA and TKA? (3) Do patients who have undergone PFA have a better ROM after 5 years than patients who have had TKA? (4) Does PFA result in more revisions or reoperations than TKA during the first 6 postoperative years?

METHODS

We considered patients who had debilitating symptoms and PF-OA as eligible for this randomized trial. Screening initially identified 204 patients as potentially eligible; 7% (15) were found not to have sufficient symptoms, 21% (43) did not have isolated PF-OA, 21% (43) declined participation, and 1% (3) were not included after the target number of 100 patients had been reached. The included 100 patients were randomized 1:1 to PFA or TKA between 2007 and 2014. Of these, 9% (9 of 100) were lost before the 6-year follow-up; there were 12% (6 of 50) and 0% (0 of 50) deaths (p = 0.02) in the PFA and TKA groups, respectively, but no deaths could be attributed to the knee condition. There were no differences in baseline parameters for patients who had PFA and TKA, such as the proportion of women in each group (78% [39 of 50] versus 76% [38 of 50]; p > 0.99), mean age (64 ± 9 years versus 65 ± 9 years; p = 0.81) or BMI (28.0 ± 4.7 kg/m 2 versus 27.8 ± 4.1 kg/m 2 ; p = 0.83). Patients were seen for five clinical follow-up visits (the latest at 5 years) and completed 10 sets of questionnaires during the first 6 postoperative years. The primary outcome was SF-36 bodily pain. Other outcomes were reoperations, revisions, ROM, and PROs (SF-36 [eight dimensions, range 0 to 100 best, minimum clinically important difference {MCID} 6 to 7], Oxford Knee Score [OKS; one dimension, range 0 to 48 best, MCID 5], and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS; five dimensions, range 0 to 100 best, MCID 8 to 10]). Average PRO improvements over the 6 years were determined by calculating the area under the curve and dividing by the observation time, thereby obtaining a time-weighted average over the entire postoperative period. PRO improvements at individual postoperative times were compared for the patients who had PFA and TKA using paired t-tests. Range of movement changes from baseline were compared using paired t-tests. Reoperation and revision rates were compared for the two randomization groups using competing risk analysis.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent PFA had a larger improvement in the SF-36 bodily pain score during the first 6 years than those who underwent TKA (35 ± 19 vs. 23 ± 17; mean difference 12 [95% CI 4 to 20]; p = 0.004), and the same was true for SF-36 physical functioning (mean difference 11 [95% CI 3 to 18]; p = 0.008), KOOS Symptoms (mean difference 12 [95% CI 5 to 20]; p = 0.002), KOOS Sport/recreation (mean difference 8 [95% CI 0 to 17]; p = 0.048), and OKS (mean difference 5 [95% CI 2 to 8]; p = 0.002). No PRO dimension had an improvement in favor of TKA. At the 6-year time point, only the SF-36 vitality score differed between the groups being in favor of PFA (17 ± 19 versus 8 ± 21; mean difference 9 [95% CI 0 to 18]; p = 0.04), whereas other PRO measures did not differ between the groups. At 5 years, ROM had decreased less from baseline for patients who underwent PFA than those who had TKA (-4° ± 14° versus -11° ± 13°; mean difference 7° [95% CI 1° to 13°]; p = 0.02), but the clinical importance of this is unknown. Revision rates did not differ between patients who had PFA and TKA at 6 years with competing risk estimates of 0.10 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.20) and 0.04 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.12; p = 0.24), respectively, and also reoperation rates were no different at 0.10 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.20) and 0.12 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.23; p = 0.71), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our RCT results show that the 2-year outcomes did not deteriorate during the subsequent 4 years. Patients who underwent PFA had a better QOL throughout the postoperative years based on several of the knee-specific outcome instruments. When evaluated by the 6-year observations alone and without considering earlier observations, we found no consistent difference for any outcome instruments, although SF-36 vitality was better for patients who underwent PFA. These combined findings show that the early advantages of PFA determined the results by 6 years. Our findings cannot explain the rapid deterioration of results implied by the high revision rates observed in implant registers, and it is necessary to question indications for the primary procedure and subsequent revision when PFA is in general use. Our data do not suggest that there is an inherent problem with the PFA implant type as otherwise suggested by registries. The long-term balance of advantages will be determined by the long-term QOL, but based on the first 6 postoperative years and ROM, PFA is still the preferable option for severe isolated PF-OA. A possible high revision rate in the PFA group beyond 6 years may outweigh the early advantage of PFA, but only detailed analyses of long-term studies can confirm this.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Anterior Knee Pain: State of the Art

Anterior knee pain (AKP) is one of the most common conditions to bring active young patients to a sports injury clinic. It is a heterogeneous condition related to multiple causative factors. Compared to the general population, there appears to be a higher risk of development of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in patients with AKP. AKP can be detrimental to the patient’s quality of life and, in the larger context, significantly burdens the economy with high healthcare costs. This study aims to present a comprehensive evaluation of AKP to improve clinical daily practice. The causes of AKP can be traced not only to structures within and around the knee, but also to factors outside the knee, such as limb malalignment, weakness of specific hip muscle groups, and core and ligamentous laxity. Hence, AKP warrants a pointed evaluation of history and thorough clinical examination, complemented with relevant radiological investigations to identify its origin in the knee and its cause. Conservative management of the condition achieves good results in a majority of patients with AKP. Surgical management becomes necessary only when it is deemed to provide benefit—when the patient has well-characterized structural abnormalities of the knee or limb that correlate with the AKP clinically or in situations where the patient does not obtain significant or sustained relief from symptoms. AKP has a multifactorial etiology. The treatment strategy must be individualized to the patient based on the patient profile and specific cause identified. Hence, treatment of AKP warrants a pointed evaluation of history and thorough clinical examination complemented with relevant radiological investigations to identify the condition’s origin and its cause. A holistic approach focused on the patient as a whole will ensure a good clinical outcome, as much as a focus on the joint as the therapeutic target.

Patellofemoral arthroplasty: expert opinion

Isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) is a common cause of anterior knee pain in patients over the age of 40 years. Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an option to address PFAO when the non-operative or joint preserving management has failed.The goals of PFA are to reduce pain and increase function of the knee in a bone and ligament preserving fashion while maintaining or optimizing its kinematics. Over the last decades advances have been made in optimizing implants designs, addressing complications and improving functional and patient reported outcomes. Appropriate patient selection has proven to be imperative. Proper surgical technique and knowledge of pearls and pitfalls is essential.The indications and surgical technique for patellofemoral arthroplasty will be reviewed here.Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level V.