The optimal alignment technique for total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. We previously reported six-month and two-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing kinematically (KA) versus mechanically (MA) aligned TKR. In the present study, we report 12-year results from this trial. The original cohort included 88 TKRs (44 KA using Shape Match patient-specific guides and 44 MA using conventional instrumentation), performed from 2008 to 2009. After IRB approval, the health record of the original 88 patients were queried. Revisions, re-operations, and complications were recorded. The non-deceased patients were contacted via phone. Reoperation and complications were documented via the patient's history. Further, a battery of patient-reported outcome measures (including patient satisfaction, WOMAC, Oxford, KOOS Jr, Forgotten Joint Score, and M-SANE) were obtained.Abstract
Introduction
Methods
We have previously reported the short-term radiological
results of a randomised controlled trial comparing kinematically
aligned total knee replacement (TKR) and mechanically aligned TKR,
along with early pain and function scores. In this study we report
the two-year clinical results from this trial. A total of 88 patients
(88 knees) were randomly allocated to undergo either kinematically
aligned TKR using patient-specific guides, or mechanically aligned
TKR using conventional instruments. They were analysed on an intention-to-treat
basis. The patients and the clinical evaluator were blinded to the
method of alignment. At a minimum of two years, all outcomes were better for the kinematically
aligned group, as determined by the mean Oxford knee score (40 (15
to 48) In this study, the use of a kinematic alignment technique performed
with patient-specific guides provided better pain relief and restored
better function and range of movement than the mechanical alignment
technique performed with conventional instruments. Cite this article:
