A Randomized controlled trial comparing patellar retention versus patellar resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty: 5–10 year follow-up

BMC Research Notes

Guy Lavoie²  DWC Johnston²  Charles Secretan²  Lauren Beaupre¹ 

[1] 2–50 Corbett Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2 G4, Canada;2D2 Walter Mackenzie Centre, 8440-112 St, Edmonton, AB, T6G 2B7, Canada

关键词: Recovery;    Patient-Reported Outcomes;    Revision;    Patellar Resurfacing;    Total Knee Arthroplasty;   

Others  :  1166360
DOI  :  10.1186/1756-0500-5-273

 received in 2012-04-16, accepted in 2012-06-01,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The primary purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare knee-specific outcomes (stiffness, pain, function) between patellar retention and resurfacing up to 10 years after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondarily, we compared re-operation rates.

Methods

38 subjects with non-inflammatory arthritis were randomized at primary TKA surgery to receive patellar resurfacing (n = 21; Resurfaced group) or to retain their native patella (n = 17; Non-resurfaced group). Evaluations were performed preoperatively, one, five and 10 years postoperatively by an evaluator who was blinded to group allocation. Self-reported knee-specific stiffness, pain and function, the primary outcomes, were measured by the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Revision rate was determined at each evaluation and through hospital record review.

Results

30 (88%) and 23 (72%) of available subjects completed the five and 10-year review respectively. Knee-specific scores continued to improve for both groups over the 10-years, despite diminishing overall health with no significant group differences seen. All revisions occurred within five years of surgery (three Non-resurfaced subjects; one Resurfaced subject) (p = 0.31). Two revisions in the Non-resurfaced group were due to persistent anterior knee pain.

Conclusions

We found no differences in knee-specific results between groups at 5–10 years postoperatively. The Non-resurfaced group had two revisions due to anterior knee pain similar to rates reported in other studies. Knee-specific results provide useful postoperative information and should be used in future studies comparing patellar management strategies.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT01500252

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Beaupre et al.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Calvisi V, Camillieri G, Lupparelli S: Resurfacing versus nonresurfacing the patella in total knee arthroplasty: a critical appraisal of the available evidence. Arch Orthop Traum Surg 2009, 129(9):1261-1270.
• [2]Bourne RB, Burnett RS: The consequences of not resurfacing the patella. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 428:166-169.
• [3]Forster MC: Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Knee 2004, 11(6):427-430.
• [4]Li S, Chen Y, Su W, Zhao J, He S, Luo X: Systematic review of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2011, 35(3):305-316.
• [5]Nizard RS, Biau D, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Bizot P, Hannouche D, et al.: A meta-analysis of patellar replacement in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2005, 432:196-203. Mar 2005;(432):196–203
• [6]Pakos EE, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA: Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Volume 2005, 87(A(7)):1438-1445.
• [7]Parvizi J, Rapuri VR, Saleh KJ, Kuskowski MA, Sharkey PF, Mont MA: Failure to resurface the patella during total knee arthroplasty may result in more knee pain and secondary surgery. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2005, 438:191-196.
• [8]Burnett RS, Boone JL, McCarthy KP, Rosenzweig S, Barrack RL: A prospective randomized clinical trial of patellar resurfacing and nonresurfacing in bilateral TKA. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2007, 464:65-72.
• [9]Campbell DG, Duncan WW, Ashworth M, Mintz A, Stirling J, Wakefield L, et al.: Patellar resurfacing in total knee replacement: a ten-year randomised prospective trial. J Bone Joint Surg 2006, 88-B(6)):734-739.
• [10]Smith AJ, Wood DJ, Li MG: Total knee replacement with and without patellar resurfacing: a prospective, randomised trial using the profix total knee system. J Bone Joint Surg 2008, 90-B(1)):43-49.
• [11]Waikakul S, Vanadurongwan V, Bintachitt P: The effects of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty on position sense: a prospective randomized study. J Med Assoc Thailand 2000, 83(9):975-982.
• [12]Waters TS, Bentley G: Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg 2003, 85-A(2)):212-217.
• [13]Wood DJ, Smith AJ, Collopy D, White B, Brankov B, Bulsara MK: Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg 2002, 84-A(2)):187-193.
• [14]Lygre SH, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Vollset SE, Furnes O: Does patella resurfacing really matter? Pain and function in 972 patients after primary total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2010, 81(1):99-107.
• [15]Burnett RS, Haydon CM, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB: Patella resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial at a minimum of 10 years' followup. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2004, 428:12-25. Nov 2004;(428):12–25
• [16]Epinette JA, Manley MT: Outcomes of patellar resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a 9-year experience based on a case series of scorpio PS knees. J Knee Surg 2008, 21(4):293-298.
• [17]Mayman D, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Vaz M, Kramer J: Resurfacing versus not resurfacing the patella in total knee arthroplasty: 8- to 10-year results. J Arthroplasty 2003, 18(5):541-545.
• [18]Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I: Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthrit Cartil 2007, 15(3):273-280.
• [19]Jones CA, Voaklander DC, Johnston DW, Suarez-Almazor ME: Health related quality of life outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasties in a community based population. J Rheumatol 2000, 27(7):1745-1752.
• [20]Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB, Kinemax Outcomes Group: Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg 2001, 83-A(12):1864-1865.
• [21]Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15(12):1833-1840.
• [22]Bellamy N: Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Sem Arthrit Rheum 1989, 18(4:Suppl 2)):Suppl-7.
• [23]Bombardier C, Melfi CA, Paul J, Green R, Hawker G, Wright J, et al.: Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Med Care 1995, 33(4 Suppl)):AS131-AS144.
• [24]Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G: Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthrit Rheum 2001, 45(4):384-391.
• [25]Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel RM: The RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0. Health Econ 1993, 2(3)):217-227.
• [26]Meneghini RM: Should the patella be resurfaced in primary total knee arthroplasty? An evidence-based analysis. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23(7:Suppl):Suppl-4.
• [27]Thomas E, Peat G, Mallen C, Wood L, Lacey R, Duncan R, et al.: Predicting the course of functional limitation among older adults with knee pain: do local signs, symptoms and radiographs add anything to general indicators? Ann Rheum Dis 2008, 67(10):1390-1398.