Abstract
Aims
The outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) depend on many factors. The impact of implant design on patient-reported outcomes is unknown. Our goal was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after primary TKA in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implant.
Patients and Methods
Using our institutional registry, we identified 4135 patients who underwent TKA using one of the five most common brands of implant. These included Biomet Vanguard (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) in 211 patients, DePuy/Johnson & Johnson Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, Massachusetts) in 222, Exactech Optetrak Logic (Exactech, Gainesville, Florida) in 1508, Smith & Nephew Genesis II (Smith & Nephew, London, United Kingdom) in 1415, and Zimmer NexGen (Zimmer Biomet) in 779 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anethesiologists status, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, two-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between groups.
Results
Outcomes were available for 4069 patients (98%) at two years postoperatively. In multiple regression analysis, which separately compared each implant group with the aggregate of all others, there were no clinically significant differences in the change of KOOS score from baseline to two-year follow-up between any of the groups. More than 80% of patients in each group were satisfied at this time in all domains. In a multivariate regression model, patients in the NexGen group were the most likely to be satisfied (odds ratio (OR) 1.63; p = 0.006) and Optetrak Logic patients were the least likely to be satisfied (OR 0.60; p < 0.001).
Conclusion
TKA provides improvement in function and satisfaction regardless of the type of implant. We could not demonstrate superiority of one design above others across these groups of implants, and any price premium for one above the other systems may not be justified. Healthcare administrators may find these similarities in outcomes helpful when negotiating purchasing contracts.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):48–54
