Abstract
Introduction
Hip and knee replacements are being performed at increasing rates and currently account for one of the largest procedure expenditures in the Medicare budget. Outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) depend on surgeon, patient and implant factors. The impact that the specific implants might have on patient-reported outcomes is unknown.
The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported functional outcomes and satisfaction after primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis who underwent TKR using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implants. Specifically, the aim was to evaluate for any difference in patient-reported outcomes based on implant brand used. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in functional outcome that could be attributed to the implant used in primary TKR.
Methods
Using our institution's total joint arthroplasty registry, we identified 4,135 patients who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) using one of the five most common implant brands used at our institution. These included Biomet Vanguard (N=211 patients), Depuy/Johnson&Johnson Sigma (N=221), Exactech OptetrakLogic (N=1,507), Smith & Nephew Genesis II (N=1,414), and Zimmer NexGen (N=779). Only posterior-stabilized primary TKRs in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and Short Form-12 (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index (BMI), Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), ASA physical status classification, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, 2-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between implant groups.
Results
At 2-year follow-up, patient-reported outcome scores were available for a total of 4,069 patients. In multiple regression analysis which separately compared each implant group to the aggregate of all others, after accounting for age, BMI, CCI, ASA status, and sex, there were no clinically significant differences in KOOS score changes from baseline to 2-year follow-up between any of the implants.
In 2-year satisfaction, >80% of patients in each implant group were satisfied in all domains measured. In the multivariate regression model, patients in the NexGen group had the highest likelihood of being satisfied (OR 1.63, p=0.006) and OptetrakLogic patients had the lowest likelihood of being satisfied (OR 0.60, P<0.001) although these differences were below the minimal clinically important thresholds.
Conclusion
TKR provides patient satisfaction and improvement in function regardless of implant type. While some implant systems had higher outcome scores than others, these differences were all below clinically significant thresholds. Whether these differences are a function of surgeon expertise or implant design is unknown. Future research should focus on identifying specific design elements that contribute to improved patient outcomes. Healthcare administrators may find the similarities in clinical outcomes to be a useful consideration when negotiating implant purchasing contracts.
