Vincent P Galea1, Mina A Botros2, Rami Madanat2,3,4, Christian S Nielsen2,3, Charles Bragdon2,3. 1. Harris Orthopaedic Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St. GRJ 1231, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. vgalea@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. Harris Orthopaedic Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St. GRJ 1231, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck St, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Helsinki University Hospital, Topeliuksenkatu 5, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to report the early clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who have been treated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the Persona knee system. The secondary aim was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the Persona knee system to those of the NexGen implant. METHODS: A registry-based study of a consecutive series of 112 patients (129 knees) treated with the Persona knee system from a single center was conducted. Preoperative, 1-year, and 2-year radiographs and PROs were analyzed. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for radiolucency and component positioning. Patients were monitored for postoperative complications and revision. Two-year PROs were compared to a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort of patients treated with the NexGen knee system. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of knees were within literature-defined safe ranges of the anatomical tibiofemoral axis, tibial varus/valgus angle, femoral flexion/extension angle, and tibial slope. Radiolucency was observed in 0.9% and 1.3% of knees at one and 2 years, respectively. Two-year PRO values demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements from the preoperative values. The cumulative 2-year percent revision was 3.0% (95% confidence interval 1.9-3.8%); there were no revisions due to implant mechanical failure. Patients treated with the Persona knee system had higher KOOS symptom (p = 0.037) and KOOS QOL (p < 0.001) scores compared to patients with the NexGen knee system. CONCLUSIONS: This knee design demonstrates excellent clinical outcomes, similar or better than the NexGen knee system, at early follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to report the early clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who have been treated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the Persona knee system. The secondary aim was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the Persona knee system to those of the NexGen implant. METHODS: A registry-based study of a consecutive series of 112 patients (129 knees) treated with the Persona knee system from a single center was conducted. Preoperative, 1-year, and 2-year radiographs and PROs were analyzed. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for radiolucency and component positioning. Patients were monitored for postoperative complications and revision. Two-year PROs were compared to a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort of patients treated with the NexGen knee system. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of knees were within literature-defined safe ranges of the anatomical tibiofemoral axis, tibial varus/valgus angle, femoral flexion/extension angle, and tibial slope. Radiolucency was observed in 0.9% and 1.3% of knees at one and 2 years, respectively. Two-year PRO values demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements from the preoperative values. The cumulative 2-year percent revision was 3.0% (95% confidence interval 1.9-3.8%); there were no revisions due to implant mechanical failure. Patients treated with the Persona knee system had higher KOOS symptom (p = 0.037) and KOOS QOL (p < 0.001) scores compared to patients with the NexGen knee system. CONCLUSIONS: This knee design demonstrates excellent clinical outcomes, similar or better than the NexGen knee system, at early follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Entities:
Keywords:
Patient-reported outcomes; Persona; Radiolucency; TKA; TKR; Total knee arthroplasty; Total knee replacement
Authors: Christopher J Barr; Richard J Barbalace; Sara J Wessinger; Charles R Bragdon; Young-Min Kwon; Henrik Malchau Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Meghan E Daigle; Alexander M Weinstein; Jeffrey N Katz; Elena Losina Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 4.098
Authors: Natalie J Collins; Devyani Misra; David T Felson; Kay M Crossley; Ewa M Roos Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Dominic T Mathis; Joshua Schmidli; Felix Amsler; Johann Henckel; Harry Hothi; Alister Hart; Michael T Hirschmann Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: Lucas Beckers; Jacobus H Müller; Jeremy Daxhelet; Salvatore Ratano; Mo Saffarini; Tarik Aït-Si-Selmi; Michel P Bonnin Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Cristina Dauder Gallego; Irene Blanca Moreno Fenoll; José Luis Patiño Contreras; Francisco Javier Moreno Coronas; María Del Carmen Torrejón de la Cal; Javier Martínez Martín Journal: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol Date: 2021-04-02
Authors: Peter L Lewis; Stephen E Graves; Richard N de Steiger; David G Campbell; Yi Peng; Alesha Hatton; Michelle Lorimer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Dominic T Mathis; Joshua Schmidli; Michael T Hirschmann; Felix Amsler; Johann Henckel; Harry Hothi; Alister Hart Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Bartosz M Maciąg; Artur Stolarczyk; Grzegorz J Maciąg; Monika Dorocińska; Piotr Stępiński; Jakub Szymczak; Maciej Świercz; Krystian Żarnovsky; Marcin Łapiński; Magda Stolarczyk Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2021-11-01