Does patient-specific instrumentation in primary total knee arthroplasty improve long-term satisfaction or function? A randomized trial with a 9-year follow-up
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20241104Keywords:
TKA, CI, PSI, Patient satisfactionAbstract
Background: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) aims to increase the accuracy of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the long-term benefit compared to conventional instrumentation (CI), is still controversial. This randomized controlled trial compares the long-term outcomes between PSI and CI in TKA.
Methods: Patients submitted to PSI or CI TKA with a minimum follow-up of 8 years were evaluated. Satisfaction levels, forgotten joint score (FJS) and Western Ontario and McMaster university osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scores were compared. Regarding descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation and frequencies were obtained. For inferential statistics we used the t test for independent samples the Mann-Whitney test and the Wilcoxon Test.
Results: A total of 50 TKA were included (48% CI; 52% PSI) with an average follow-up time of 9.3 years. At the final follow-up the WOMAC score was similar between groups (p=0.846; CI:26.8±22.5; PSI:26.8±25.3). Similarly, no differences were seen for the FJS (p=0.785; CI:59.6±35.1; PSI:57.1±36.2) or satisfaction (p=0.486; CI:8.1±2.8; PSI:9.1±1.4). However, at the final follow-up, the total WOMAC score had worse results when compared to the previous evaluations (p=0.013 for CI group; p=0.009 for PSI group). No significant differences in the satisfaction levels were detected regarding the initial and final evaluations (p=0.581 for CI group; p=0.936 for PSI group).
Conclusions: Nine years after TKA, PSI and CI patients reported similar levels of satisfaction and functioning. Both groups achieved similar results concerning the WOMAC, FJS scores and satisfaction levels. This study suggests that long-term satisfaction and functioning levels are similar in both PSI and CI.
References
DeFrance MJ, Scuderi GR. Are 20% of Patients Actually Dissatisfied Following Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(3):594-9.
Vide J, Freitas TP, Ramos A, Cruz H, Sousa JP. Patient-specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: simpler, faster and more accurate than standard instrumentation-a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(8):2616-21.
Hetaimish BM, Khan MM, Simunovic N, Al-Harbi HH, Bhandari M, Zalzal PK. Meta-Analysis of Navigation vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):1177-82.
Chotanaphuti T, Wangwittayakul V, Khuangsirikul S, Foojareonyos T. The accuracy of component alignment in custom cutting blocks compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty instrumentation: prospective control trial. Knee. 2014;21(1):185-8.
Lustig S, Sappey-Marinier E, Fary C, Servien E, Parratte S, Batailler C. Personalized alignment in total knee arthroplasty: Current concepts. Sicot-J. 2021;7:1-9.
Patil S, Bunn A, Bugbee WD, Colwell CW, D’Lima DD. Patient-specific implants with custom cutting blocks better approximate natural knee kinematics than standard TKA without custom cutting blocks. Knee. 2015;22(6):624-9.
Ren JT, Xu C, Wang JS, Liu XL. Meta analysis of three-dimensional printing patient-specific instrumentation versus conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017;55(10):775-81.
Kizaki K, Shanmugaraj A, Yamashita F, Nicole S, Andrew D, Vickas K, et al. Total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019;20(1):561.
Zeh A, Gehler V, Gutteck N, Beckmann J, Brill R, Wohlrab D. Superior clinical results and higher satisfaction after customized compared with conventional TKA. Acta Orthop Belg. 2021;87(4):649-58.
Lorenzo M, Pietro P, Michel C, Alessandro B, Filippo C. Patient Specific instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty: a state of the art. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(7):126.
Rudran B, Magill H, Ponugoti N, Williams A, Ball S. Functional outcomes in patient specific instrumentation vs. conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty; a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022;23(1):1-15.
Beit Ner E, Dosani S, Biant LC, Tawy GF. Custom Implants in TKA Provide No Substantial Benefit in Terms of Outcome Scores, Reoperation Risk, or Mean Alignment: A Systematic Review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2021;479(6):1237-49.
Moret CS, Schelker BL, Hirschmann MT. Clinical and radiological outcomes after knee arthroplasty with patient-specific versus off-the-shelf knee implants: A systematic review. J Pers Med. 2021;11(7).
Zhao L, Xu F, Lao S, Zhao J, Wei Q. Comparison of the clinical effects of computer-assisted and traditional techniques in bilateral total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):1-14.
Bali K, Walker P, Bruce W. Custom-fit total knee arthroplasty: our initial experience in 32 knees. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(6):1149-54.
Camarda L, D’Arienzo A, Morello S, Peri G, Valentino B, D’Arienzo M. Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: a literature review. Musculoskelet Surg. 2015;99(1):11-8.
Lee S-H, Song E-K, Seon J-K, Seol Y-J, Prakash J, Lee W-G. A Comparative Study Between Patient-Specific Instrumentation and Conventional Technique in TKA. Orthopedics. 2016;39(3):S83-7.
Nam D, Nunley RM, Berend KR, Lombardi A V, Barrack RL. The impact of custom cutting guides on patient satisfaction and residual symptoms following total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2016;23(1):144-8.
Nam D, Park A, Stambough JB, Johnson SR, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. The Mark Coventry Award: Custom Cutting Guides Do Not Improve Total Knee Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes at 2 Years Followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(1):40-6.
Schoenmakers DAL, Schotanus MGM, Boonen B, Kort NP. Consistency in patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instrumentation: a 5-year follow-up of 200 consecutive cases. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(6):1800-4.
Boonen B. Patient-matched positioning guides in total knee arthroplasty. Maastricht: Datawyse/ Universitaire Pers Maastricht, 2017.
Stratford PW, Kennedy DM. Does parallel item content on WOMAC’s Pain and Function Subscales limit its ability to detect change in functional status? BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2004;5(1):17.
Copsey B, Thompson JY, Vadher K, Ali U, Dutton SJ, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Problems persist in reporting of methods and results for the WOMAC measure in hip and knee osteoarthritis trials. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(2):335-43.
Clement ND, Bardgett M, Weir D, Holland J, Gerrand C, Deehan DJ. What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the WOMAC Index After TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(10):2005-14.
MacKay C, Clements N, Wong R, Davis AM. A systematic review of estimates of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in patients who underwent total hip and total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2019;27(10):1408-19.
Loth FL, Giesinger JM, Giesinger K, Howie CR, Hamilton DF. Single-item satisfaction scores mask large variations in pain, function and joint awareness in patients following total joint arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020;30(2):267-74.
Walker LC, Clement ND, Bardgett M, David W, Jim H, Craig G, et al. The WOMAC score can be reliably used to classify patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(11):3333-41.
Sinclair S, Klika AK, Jin Y, Higuera CA, Piuzzi NS. The impact of surgeon variability on patient-reported outcome measures, length of stay, discharge disposition, and 90-day readmission in TKA. J Bone Jt Surg Am. 2022;104(22):2016-25.
Dorling IM, Geenen L, Heymans MJLF, Most J, Boonen B, Schotanus MGM. Cost-effectiveness of patient specific vs conventional instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Orthop. 2023;14(6):458-70.
