15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A prospective double-blinded randomised control trial comparing robotic arm-assisted functionally aligned total knee arthroplasty versus robotic arm-assisted mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with mechanical alignment (MA) aims to achieve neutral limb alignment in all patients, whereas TKA with functional alignment (FA) aims to restore native, patient-specific anatomy and knee kinematics by manipulating bone resections and fine-tuning implant positioning. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal alignment technique in TKA by comparing patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness in MA TKA versus FA TKA. Robotic technology will be used to execute the planned implant positioning and limb alignment with high-levels of accuracy in all study patients.

          Methods and analysis

          This prospective double-blinded randomised control trial will include 100 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary robotic arm-assisted TKA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to MA TKA (the control group) or FA TKA (the investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. Blinded observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes relating to postoperative rehabilitation, clinical progress, functional outcomes, accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment, gait, implant stability, cost-effectiveness, and complications. A superiority study design will be used to evaluate whether FA TKA provides superior outcomes compared to MA TKA. Primary and secondary objectives will be used to quantify and draw inferences on differences in the efficacy of treatment between the two groups. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol population analysis will be undertaken. The following statistical methods will be employed to analyse the data: descriptive statistics, independent t test, paired t test, analysis of variance, Fisher exact test, chi-square test, and graphical displays. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Surrey Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK.

          Discussion

          This is the first study to describe the use of robotic technology to achieve FA TKA, and the only existing clinical trial comparing robotic MA TKA versus robotic FA TKA. The findings of this study will enable an improved understanding of the optimal alignment technique in TKA for achieving high-levels of patient satisfaction, improving functional outcomes, increasing implant survivorship, improving cost-effectiveness, and reducing complications.

          Registration

          Clinical Trials.gov, NCT04092153. Registered on 17 September 2019.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Chitranjan Ranawat award: is neutral mechanical alignment normal for all patients? The concept of constitutional varus.

          Most knee surgeons have believed during TKA neutral mechanical alignment should be restored. A number of patients may exist, however, for whom neutral mechanical alignment is abnormal. Patients with so-called "constitutional varus" knees have had varus alignment since they reached skeletal maturity. Restoring neutral alignment in these cases may in fact be abnormal and undesirable and would likely require some degree of medial soft tissue release to achieve neutral alignment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty.

            Satisfaction with the outcome of total knee arthroplasty is highly variable, with a small but significant percentage of patients reporting dissatisfaction with the procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine which factors contribute to patient satisfaction with total knee replacement (TKR), and their relative importance. At a minimum of 1 year post unilateral primary TKR, 253 patients completed a self-administered, validated "Knee Function Questionnaire," which examined each patient's participation in a broad range of activities involving the knee, their level of satisfaction, and the extent to which TKR had fulfilled their expectations. The association between function, expectation and satisfaction was examined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Seventy-five percent of patients were either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their knee replacement, while 14% were "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied." Satisfaction correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with age less than 60, absence of residual symptoms, fulfillment of expectations, and absence of functional impairment. Satisfaction with TKR is primarily determined by patients' expectations, and not their absolute level of function. Real improvements in the outcome of TKA must address prevention of residual pain, stiffness and swelling, and each patient's preoperative concept of the likely outcome of these procedures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

              A postal questionnaire was sent to 10,000 patients more than one year after their total knee replacement (TKR). They were assessed using the Oxford knee score and were asked whether they were satisfied, unsure or unsatisfied with their TKR. The response rate was 87.4% (8231 of 9417 eligible questionnaires) and a total of 81.8% (6625 of 8095) of patients were satisfied. Multivariable regression modelling showed that patients with higher scores relating to the pain and function elements of the Oxford knee score had a lower level of satisfaction (p < 0.001), and that ongoing pain was a stronger predictor of this. Female gender and a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis were found to be predictors of lower levels of patient satisfaction. Differences in the rate of satisfaction were also observed in relation to age, the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and the type of prosthesis. This study has provided data on the Oxford knee score and the expected levels of satisfaction at one year after TKR. The results should act as a benchmark of practice in the United Kingdom and provide a baseline for peer comparison between institutions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                babar.kayani@gmail.com
                sujithkonan@yahoo.co.uk
                jenni.tahmassebi1@nhs.net
                s.oussedik@nhs.net
                petem1988@gmail.com
                fsh@fareshaddad.net
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                18 February 2020
                18 February 2020
                2020
                : 21
                : 194
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 0612 2754, GRID grid.439749.4, Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, , University College Hospital, ; 235 Euston Road, Fitzrovia, London, NW1 2BU UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6611-3989
                Article
                4123
                10.1186/s13063-020-4123-8
                7027302
                32070406
                3e258361-0e48-4a54-a4c4-80998486c9c9
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 18 December 2019
                : 30 January 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100008894, Stryker;
                Award ID: 27075
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article