Functional outcome of total knee replacement: a study protocol for a prospective, double-blinded, parallel-group randomized, clinical controlled trial of novel, personalized and conventional implants.
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
/ economics
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Double-Blind Method
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Knee Joint
/ physiopathology
Knee Prosthesis
/ economics
Male
Middle Aged
Osteoarthritis, Knee
/ economics
Prospective Studies
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Range of Motion, Articular
Treatment Outcome
Arthroplasty
Clinical protocols
Functional outcome
Knee osteoarthritis
Novel designs
Prospective studies
Total knee replacement
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Oct 2019
12 Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
05
02
2019
accepted:
12
09
2019
entrez:
13
10
2019
pubmed:
13
10
2019
medline:
25
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The development of total knee replacement (TKR) implant designs aims to improve outcome regarding pain, function, joint stiffness, instability, patellar problems, and ultimately wear of the implant. Recently, two major orthopaedic implant manufacturers launched a new generation of TKR implants which, according to the manufacturers, provide improved functional outcome. However, the benefits of these new TKR designs claimed by the manufacturers in terms of improved functional outcome still lack scientific documentation. The present randomized controlled trial has been designed to compare three fixed bearing, cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) designs; one of the new personalized TKR design with two conventional TKR designs with the main emphasis being on functional outcome. The present study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, single-center intervention trial. A total of 240 patients will be recruited to participate in a parallel-group study at Coxa Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland. We will compare the short-term functional outcome of TKR performed with a novel personalized TKR design (Persona CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) against TKRs performed with two conventional designs (PFC CR, DePuy, Warsaw, IN, USA and Nexgen CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). In total, 80 patients will be randomized in each of the three study arms. The primary outcome in this study is the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), which is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Secondary outcome measures include the Forgotten Joint Score, the 15D, the UCLA activity score, and the VAS pain scale. The results will be analyzed after 2-year follow-up. This paper presents a prospective, randomized, single-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient randomization, PROMs, follow-up, methods of analysis of the material, and publication plan. An important aspect that will be considered in the study will be the economic effects of the novel designs as they are substantially more expensive, and the benefits of the added costs remain unknown. In addition, it is especially important to carry out evaluative studies in independent centers that are not biased by the interests of the manufacturers. Retrospectively registered, November, 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03339557 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The development of total knee replacement (TKR) implant designs aims to improve outcome regarding pain, function, joint stiffness, instability, patellar problems, and ultimately wear of the implant. Recently, two major orthopaedic implant manufacturers launched a new generation of TKR implants which, according to the manufacturers, provide improved functional outcome. However, the benefits of these new TKR designs claimed by the manufacturers in terms of improved functional outcome still lack scientific documentation. The present randomized controlled trial has been designed to compare three fixed bearing, cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) designs; one of the new personalized TKR design with two conventional TKR designs with the main emphasis being on functional outcome.
METHODS
METHODS
The present study is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, single-center intervention trial. A total of 240 patients will be recruited to participate in a parallel-group study at Coxa Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland. We will compare the short-term functional outcome of TKR performed with a novel personalized TKR design (Persona CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) against TKRs performed with two conventional designs (PFC CR, DePuy, Warsaw, IN, USA and Nexgen CR, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA). In total, 80 patients will be randomized in each of the three study arms. The primary outcome in this study is the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), which is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Secondary outcome measures include the Forgotten Joint Score, the 15D, the UCLA activity score, and the VAS pain scale. The results will be analyzed after 2-year follow-up.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a prospective, randomized, single-center trial study protocol. It provides details of patient randomization, PROMs, follow-up, methods of analysis of the material, and publication plan. An important aspect that will be considered in the study will be the economic effects of the novel designs as they are substantially more expensive, and the benefits of the added costs remain unknown. In addition, it is especially important to carry out evaluative studies in independent centers that are not biased by the interests of the manufacturers.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Retrospectively registered, November, 2017, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03339557 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 31604440
doi: 10.1186/s12891-019-2830-7
pii: 10.1186/s12891-019-2830-7
pmc: PMC6790022
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03339557']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
443Subventions
Organisme : Government
ID : Institutional grant
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):73-9
pubmed: 25441700
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Apr 01;17:141
pubmed: 27036995
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Aug;89(8):1010-4
pubmed: 17785736
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Sep;26(9):1170-1180
pubmed: 29723634
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Sep;92(9):1253-8
pubmed: 20798443
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Jan;80(1):63-9
pubmed: 9460955
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Aug;94(8):1058-66
pubmed: 22844046
Qual Life Res. 2015 Mar;24(3):599-606
pubmed: 25145637
Acta Orthop. 2007 Feb;78(1):108-15
pubmed: 17453401
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Jan;473(1):101-8
pubmed: 24903823
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Jan-Feb;(192):13-22
pubmed: 3967412
BMJ Open. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):e000435
pubmed: 22357571
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct 22;373(17):1597-606
pubmed: 26488691
Bone Joint J. 2013 Nov;95-B(11 Suppl A):129-32
pubmed: 24187370
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jan;468(1):57-63
pubmed: 19844772
J Arthroplasty. 2014 May;29(5):912-7
pubmed: 24269097
Bone Joint J. 2013 Sep;95-B(9):1209-16
pubmed: 23997134
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Nov;94(11):1506-10
pubmed: 23109630
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 Feb 06;9:7
pubmed: 24502700
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Mar;27(3):430-436.e1
pubmed: 22000572
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985 Jan-Feb;(192):23-33
pubmed: 3967427
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Feb;22(2):184-9
pubmed: 24262431
J Arthroplasty. 1998 Dec;13(8):890-5
pubmed: 9880181
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 Feb 8;18(1):74
pubmed: 28178956
Bone Joint J. 2013 Jan;95-B(1):115-21
pubmed: 23307684
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Aug;22(8):1716-8
pubmed: 24981991
Bone Joint Res. 2014 Jul;3(7):217-22
pubmed: 24986492
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
pubmed: 17403800
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Jun;470(6):1711-7
pubmed: 22161119
PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e59500
pubmed: 23573200
Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):328-36
pubmed: 11491191
J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):48-51
pubmed: 23688851
Acta Orthop. 2016 Jun;87(3):280-5
pubmed: 26937689
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9):1927-32
pubmed: 27012431
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 May;86(5):963-74
pubmed: 15118039