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

Knee joint distraction compared with total knee arthroplasty

a randomised controlled trial



Download PDF

Abstract

Aims

Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a relatively new, knee-joint preserving procedure with the goal of delaying total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in young and middle-aged patients. We present a randomised controlled trial comparing the two.

Patients and Methods

The 60 patients ≤ 65 years with end-stage knee osteoarthritis were randomised to either KJD (n = 20) or TKA (n = 40). Outcomes were assessed at baseline, three, six, nine, and 12 months. In the KJD group, the joint space width (JSW) was radiologically assessed, representing a surrogate marker of cartilage thickness.

Results

In total 56 patients completed their allocated treatment (TKA = 36, KJD = 20). All patient reported outcome measures improved significantly over one year (p < 0.02) in both groups. At one year, the TKA group showed a greater improvement in only one of the 16 patient-related outcome measures assessed (p = 0.034). Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International clinical response was 83% after TKA and 80% after KJD. A total of 12 patients (60%) in the KJD group sustained pin track infections. In the KJD group both mean minimum (0.9 mm, standard deviation (sd) 1.1) and mean JSW (1.2 mm, sd 1.1) increased significantly (p = 0.004 and p = 0.0003).

Conclusion

In relatively young patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis, KJD did not demonstrate inferiority of outcomes at one year when compared with TKA. However, there is a high incidence of pin track infection associated with KJD.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:51–8.


Correspondence should be sent to F. P. J. G. Lafeber; email:

For access options please click here