Patient specific implants versus conventional implants in primary total knee arthroplasty: No significant difference in patient reported outcomes at 5 years

Abstract

BackgroundPatient specific implants (PSI) represent a novel innovation aimed to improve patient satisfaction and function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, longitudinal patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PSI are not well described. We sought to primarily evaluate PROMs of patients undergoing TKA with either PSI or off-the-shelf (OTS) implants at mid-term follow-up. MethodsA retrospective review was performed on a prospectively collected cohort of 43 primary, cruciate-retaining TKAs performed with PSI (n = 23) and OTS implants (n = 20) by a single surgeon. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, range of motion (ROM) return, reoperations, and outcomes [Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) T-score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), and Knee Society Score-Function (KSS-F)] were compared. Mean follow-up was 5 years. ResultsTKA performed with either PSI and OTS implants demonstrated no difference in obtaining ROM by 3 months (extension 3° short of full extension vs. 0°, p = 0.16) or flexion (114° vs. 115°, p = 0.99) and final ROM was identical [0° extension to 120° flexion (p = 1)]. Although not significant (p = 0.42), 5 (22%) PSI TKA and 2 (10%) OTS implant patients required manipulation under anesthesia. KSS-F and PROMIS T-scores were higher in the PSI versus OTS TKA patients, respectively (90 vs. 73, p = 0.002; 51.6 vs. 44.5, p = 0.01). However, after multivariable analysis, none of these continuous outcome measures were significantly different (p = 0.28 for KSS and p = 0.45 for PROMIS T-score) between the groups. ConclusionIn a series of TKAs performed with PSI, no difference existed in postoperative ROM, reoperations, or patient-reported outcomes compared to OTS implants at 5 years. Surgeons may utilize the equivocal midterm results during TKA preoperative patient discussion of implant technologies.