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

Aims

The aims were to assess whether joint-specific outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was influenced by implant design over a 12-year follow-up period, and whether patient-related factors were associated with loss to follow-up and mortality risk.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an established and successful procedure. However, the design of prostheses continues to be modified in an attempt to optimise the functional outcome of the patient. . The aim of this study was to determine if patient outcome after TKA was influenced by the design of the prosthesis used. A total of 212 patients (mean age 69; 43 to 92; 131 female (62%), 81 male (32%)) were enrolled in a single centre double-blind trial and randomised to receive either a Kinemax (group 1) or a Triathlon (group 2) TKA. . Patients were assessed pre-operatively, at six weeks, six months, one year and three years after surgery. The outcome assessments used were the Oxford Knee Score; range of movement; pain numerical rating scales; lower limb power output; timed functional assessment battery and a satisfaction survey. Data were assessed incorporating change over all assessment time points, using repeated measures analysis of variance longitudinal mixed models. Implant group 2 showed a significantly greater range of movement (p = 0.009), greater lower limb power output (p = 0.026) and reduced report of ‘worst daily pain’ (p = 0.003) over the three years of follow-up. Differences in Oxford Knee Score (p = 0.09), report of ‘average daily pain’ (p = 0.57) and timed functional performance tasks (p = 0.23) did not reach statistical significance. Satisfaction with outcome was significantly better in group 2 (p = 0.001). These results suggest that patient outcome after TKA can be influenced by the prosthesis used. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:64–70