Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Knee

No difference in clinical outcome between patient-matched positioning guides and conventional instrumented total knee arthroplasty two years post-operatively

a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial



Download PDF

Abstract

Aims

We wished to compare the clinical outcome, as assessed by questionnaires and the rate of complications, in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) undertaken with patient-matched positioning guides (PMPGs) or conventional instruments.

Patients and Methods

A total of 180 patients (74 men, 106 women; mean age 67 years) were included in a multicentre, adequately powered, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The mean follow-up was 44 months (24 to 57).

Results

There were no significant or clinically relevant differences between the two groups for all outcome measures (Knee Society Score, p = 0.807; Oxford Knee Score, p = 0.304; Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index, p = 0.753; visual analogue scale for pain, p = 0.227; EuroQol-5D-3L index score, p = 0.610; EuroQol-5D-3L VAS health, p = 0.968.) There was no difference in the rate of complications (p = 0.291).

Conclusion

PMPGs are already in relatively common use and their short-term clinical results are equal to conventional instrumented TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:939–44.


Correspondence should be sent to Mr B. Boonen; e-mail:

For access options please click here