Literature DB >> 32228078

Reduction in patient outcomes but implant-derived preservation of function following total knee arthroplasty: longitudinal follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

David F Hamilton1, Richard Burnett1, James T Patton1, Gavin J MacPherson1, A H R W Simpson1, Colin R Howie1, Paul Gaston1.   

Abstract

AIMS: There are comparatively few randomized studies evaluating knee arthroplasty prostheses, and fewer still that report longer-term functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate mid-term outcomes of an existing implant trial cohort to document changing patient function over time following total knee arthroplasty using longitudinal analytical techniques and to determine whether implant design chosen at time of surgery influenced these outcomes.
METHODS: A mid-term follow-up of the remaining 125 patients from a randomized cohort of total knee arthroplasty patients (initially comprising 212 recruited patients), comparing modern (Triathlon) and traditional (Kinemax) prostheses was undertaken. Functional outcomes were assessed with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), knee range of movement, pain numerical rating scales, lower limb power output, timed functional assessment battery, and satisfaction survey. Data were linked to earlier assessment timepoints, and analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed models, incorporating longitudinal change over all assessment timepoints.
RESULTS: The mean follow-up of the 125 patients was 8.12 years (7.3 to 9.4). There was a reduction in all assessment parameters relative to earlier assessments. Longitudinal models highlight changes over time in all parameters and demonstrate large effect sizes. Significant between-group differences were seen in measures of knee flexion (medium-effect size), lower limb power output (large-effect size), and report of worst daily pain experienced (large-effect size) favouring the Triathlon group. No longitudinal between-group differences were observed in mean OKS, average daily pain report, or timed performance test. Satisfaction with outcome in surviving patients at eight years was 90.5% (57/63) in the Triathlon group and 82.8% (48/58) in the Kinemax group, with no statistical difference between groups (p = 0.321).
CONCLUSION: At a mean 8.12 years, this mid-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial cohort highlights a general reduction in measures of patient function with patient age and follow-up duration, and a comparative preservation of function based on implant received at time of surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):434-441.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implant design; Outcomes; Patient function; Total knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32228078      PMCID: PMC7133720          DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B4.BJJ-2019-0767.R2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  16 in total

1.  Recovery of mobility after knee arthroplasty: expected rates and influencing factors.

Authors:  Sarah E Lamb; Helen Frost
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

Authors:  P N Baker; J H van der Meulen; J Lewsey; P J Gregg
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-07

3.  Low plasma carotenoids and skeletal muscle strength decline over 6 years.

Authors:  Fulvio Lauretani; Richard D Semba; Stefania Bandinelli; Margaret Dayhoff-Brannigan; Vittoria Giacomini; Anna Maria Corsi; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 6.053

4.  Reliability of knee joint range of motion and circumference measurements after total knee arthroplasty: does tester experience matter?

Authors:  Thomas Linding Jakobsen; Malene Christensen; Stine Sommer Christensen; Marie Olsen; Thomas Bandholm
Journal:  Physiother Res Int       Date:  2010-09

5.  Physiological factors contributing to mobility loss over 9 years of follow-up—results from the InCHIANTI study.

Authors:  Sari Stenholm; Michelle Shardell; Stefania Bandinelli; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2015-03-07       Impact factor: 6.053

6.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

Authors:  N Bellamy; W W Buchanan; C H Goldsmith; J Campbell; L W Stitt
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 4.666

7.  The use of multiple-item scales for pain intensity measurement in chronic pain patients.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Lindsey R Turner; Judith A Turner; Joan M Romano
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 8.  Knee replacement.

Authors:  Andrew J Price; Abtin Alvand; Anders Troelsen; Jeffrey N Katz; Gary Hooper; Alastair Gray; Andrew Carr; David Beard
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery.

Authors:  David J Beard; Kristina Harris; Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; David W Murray; Andrew J Carr; Andrew J Price
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 6.437

10.  What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement.

Authors:  D F Hamilton; J V Lane; P Gaston; J T Patton; D Macdonald; A H R W Simpson; C R Howie
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Technological developments enable measuring and using patient-reported outcomes data in orthopaedic clinical practice.

Authors:  David F Hamilton; Johannes M Giesinger; Karlmeinrad Giesinger
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2020-12-18
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.