3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Why personalized surgery is the future of hip and knee arthroplasty: a statement from the Personalized Arthroplasty Society

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          • Although hip and knee joint replacements provide excellent clinical results, many patients still do not report the sensation and function of a natural joint. The perception that the joint is artificial may result from the anatomical modifications imposed by the surgical technique and the implant design. Moreover, the joint replacement material may not function similarly to human tissues.

          • To restore native joint kinematics, function, and perception, three key elements play a role: (i) joint morphology (articular surface geometry, bony anatomy, etc.), (ii) lower limb anatomy (alignment, joint orientation), and (iii) soft tissue laxity/tension.

          • To provide a ‘forgotten joint’ to most patients, it is becoming clear that personalizing joint replacement is the key solution. Performing a personalized joint replacement starts with patient selection and preoperative optimization, followed by using a surgical technique and implant design aimed at restoring the patient’s native anatomy, creating optimal implant-to-bone stress transfer, restoring the joint’s native articular range of motion without imposed limitations, macro- and micro-stability of the soft tissues, and a bearing whose wear resistance provides lifetime survivorship with unrestricted activities. In addition, the whole perioperative experience should follow enhanced recovery after surgery principles, favoring a rapid and complication-free recovery.

          • As a new concept, some confusion may arise when applying these personalized surgery principles. Therefore, the Personalized Arthroplasty Society was created to help structure and accelerate the adoption of this paradigm change. This statement from the Society on personalized arthroplasty will serve as a reference that will evolve with time.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

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

          The operation of the century: total hip replacement.

          In the 1960s, total hip replacement revolutionised management of elderly patients crippled with arthritis, with very good long-term results. Today, young patients present for hip-replacement surgery hoping to restore their quality of life, which typically includes physically demanding activities. Advances in bioengineering technology have driven development of hip prostheses. Both cemented and uncemented hips can provide durable fixation. Better materials and design have allowed use of large-bore bearings, which provide an increased range of motion with enhanced stability and very low wear. Minimally invasive surgery limits soft-tissue damage and facilitates accelerated discharge and rehabilitation. Short-term objectives must not compromise long-term performance. Computer-assisted surgery will contribute to reproducible and accurate placement of implants. Universal economic constraints in healthcare services dictate that further developments in total hip replacement will be governed by their cost-effectiveness.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study

            Summary Background Total joint replacements for end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip and knee are cost-effective and demonstrate significant clinical improvement. However, robust population based lifetime-risk data for implant revision are not available to aid patient decision making, which is a particular problem in young patient groups deciding on best-timing for surgery. Methods We did implant survival analysis on all patients within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who had undergone total hip replacement or total knee replacement. These data were adjusted for all-cause mortality with data from the Office for National Statistics and used to generate lifetime risks of revision surgery based on increasing age at the time of primary surgery. Findings We identified 63 158 patients who had undergone total hip replacement and 54 276 who had total knee replacement between Jan 1, 1991, and Aug 10, 2011, and followed up these patients to a maximum of 20 years. For total hip replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 95·6% (95% CI 95·3–95·9) and 20-year rate was 85·0% (83·2–86·6). For total knee replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 96·1% (95·8–96·4), and 20-year implant survival rate was 89·7% (87·5–91·5). The lifetime risk of requiring revision surgery in patients who had total hip replacement or total knee replacement over the age of 70 years was about 5% with no difference between sexes. For those who had surgery younger than 70 years, however, the lifetime risk of revision increased for younger patients, up to 35% (95% CI 30·9–39·1) for men in their early 50s, with large differences seen between male and female patients (15% lower for women in same age group). The median time to revision for patients who had surgery younger than age 60 was 4·4 years. Interpretation Our study used novel methodology to investigate and offer new insight into the importance of young age and risk of revision after total hip or knee replacement. Our evidence challenges the increasing trend for more total hip replacements and total knee replacements to be done in the younger patient group, and these data should be offered to patients as part of the shared decision making process. Funding Oxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The "forgotten joint" as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure.

              With improving patient outcome after joint arthroplasty, new assessment tools with increased discriminatory power especially in well-performing patients are desirable. The goal of the present study was to develop and validate a new score ("Forgotten Joint Score," or FJS) introducing a new aspect of patient-reported outcome: the patient's ability to forget the artificial joint in everyday life. After a pilot study, the FJS was validated and showed high internal consistency (Cronbach α = .95). Ceiling effects were considerably lower for the FJS (9.2%) compared with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities subscales (16.7%-46.7%). Known-group comparisons proved the FJS to be highly discriminative in a validation sample of 243 patients. The FJS not only reflects differences between "good" and "bad" but also between "good," "very good," and "excellent" outcomes. This concise score is appealing for its more adequate measurement range and because it measures the new, promising concept of the "forgotten joint." Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                EFORT Open Rev
                EFORT Open Rev
                eor
                EFORT Open Reviews
                Bioscientifica Ltd (Bristol )
                2058-5241
                01 December 2023
                01 December 2023
                : 8
                : 12
                : 874-882
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Personalized Arthroplasty Society
                [2 ]Surgery Department , Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Montreal University, Montreal, Québec, Canada
                [3 ]Clinique orthopédique Duval , 1487 Boul des Laurentides, Laval
                [4 ]Bordeaux Arthroplasty Research Institute - Clinique du Sport Bordeaux-Mérignac 04-06 rue Georges Negrevergne , Mérignac, France
                [5 ]Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology , Kantonsspital Baselland, Bruderholz, Switzerland
                [6 ]Clinical Research Group Michael T. Hirschmann , Regenerative Medicine & Biomechanics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
                [7 ]Department of Surgery , University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence should be addressed to P-A Vendittoli; Email: pa.vendittoli@ 123456me.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4652-6238
                Article
                EOR-22-0096
                10.1530/EOR-22-0096
                10714387
                38038379
                8332644b-29ef-4143-9faa-2ee378839edb
                © the author(s)

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

                History
                Categories
                General Orthopaedics
                general-orthopaedics, General Orthopaedics
                Hip
                Knee
                Arthroplasty
                Personalized
                Kinematic
                Alignment
                Outcome
                Satisfaction
                Forgotten Joint
                Custom metadata
                general-orthopaedics

                hip,knee,arthroplasty,personalized,kinematic,alignment,outcome,satisfaction,forgotten joint

                Comments

                Comment on this article