A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF KINEMATICALLY AND MECHANICALLY ALIGNED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: 12-YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsOf the original 88 patients in the study, 15 patients had a least one reoperation (17%). Patella problems were the most common cause of reoperation accounting for 5/8 reoperations in the KA group versus 3/7 in the MA group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two alignment methods in terms of major and minor complications or reoperations. At the 12-year follow-up, 26 patients died leaving 62 patients for follow-up. Of these, 48 patients (77%) were successfully contacted. The kinematically aligned total knees self-reported better satisfaction (96% versus 82%), but no difference in other patient-reported outcome measures compared to mechanically aligned TKRs.ConclusionKA TKR demonstrates excellent mid to long-term results compared to MA TKR with similar reoperations, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures.