Similar Postoperative Patient-reported Outcome in Both Second Generation Patellofemoral Arthroplasty and Total Knee Arthroplasty for Treatment of Isolated Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2018 Sep 29

PMID 30264243

Citations 13

Authors

Kristine Ifigenia Bunyoz

Sebastien Lustig

Anders Troelsen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: Due to inconsistent results and high failure rates, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is more often used to treat isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis (PFOA) despite the theoretical advantage of patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA). It is perceived that second-generation PFA may have improved the outcomes of surgery. In this systematic review, the primary aim was to compare outcomes of second-generation PFA and TKA by assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods: A systematic search was made in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and MeSH to identify studies using second-generation PFA implants or TKA for treatment of PFOA. Only studies using The American Knee Society (AKSS), The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) or The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) to report on PROMs were included.

Results: The postoperative weighted mean AKSS knee scores were 88.6 in the second-generation PFA group and 91.8 in the TKA group. The postoperative weighted mean AKSS function score was 79.5 in the second-generation PFA group and 86.4 in the TKA group. There was no significant difference in the mean AKSS knee or function scores between the second-generation PFA group and the TKA group. The postoperative weighted mean OKS score was 36.7 and the postoperative weighted mean WOMAC score was 24.4. The revision rate was higher in the second-generation PFA group (113 revisions [8.4%]) than in the TKA group (3 revisions [1.3%]). Progression of OA was most commonly noted as the reason for revision of PFA, and it was noted in 60 cases [53.1%]; this was followed by pain in 33 cases [29.2%].

Conclusion: Excellent postoperative weighted mean AKSS knee scores were found in both the second-generation PFA group and in the TKA group, suggesting that both surgical options can result in a satisfying patient-reported outcome. Higher revision rates in the second-generation PFA studies may in part be due to challenges related to patient selection. Based on evaluation of PROMs, the use of second-generation PFA seems to be an equal option to TKA for treatment of isolated PFOA in appropriately selected patients. Hopefully, this can be considered by physicians in their daily clinical work.

Level Of Evidence: IV.

Citing Articles

Should we recommend patellofemoral arthroplasties to patients?.

Vella-Baldacchino M, Webb J, Selvarajah B, Chatha S, Davies A, Cobb J Bone Jt Open. 2023; 4(12):948-956.

PMID: 38096897 PMC: 10721344. DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.412.BJO-2023-0100.R1.

The landscape of patellofemoral arthroplasty research: a bibliometric analysis.

Yang Y, Chen Y, Wang Y, Wang J, Lu B, Zhu W Arthroplasty. 2023; 5(1):65.

PMID: 38042843 PMC: 10693710. DOI: 10.1186/s42836-023-00215-1.

Current outcomes of patellofemoral arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral arthritis - A narrative review.

Morrison R, Mandalia V J Orthop. 2023; 46:156-160.

PMID: 37997600 PMC: 10663639. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2023.10.036.

Internal Rotation, Varus, and Anterior Femoral Component Malalignments Adversely Affect Patellofemoral Joint Kinematics in Patellofemoral Arthroplasty.

Yamawaki Y, Kuriyama S, Watanabe M, Nakamura S, Ohkoshi Y, Matsuda S Arthroplast Today. 2023; 21:101124.

PMID: 37012933 PMC: 10066524. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101124.

Establishing minimal detectable change thresholds for the international knee documentation committee and Kujala scores at one and two years after patellofemoral joint arthroplasty.

Kunze K, Palhares G, Uppstrom T, Hinkley P, Rizy M, Gomoll A Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023; 31(8):3299-3306.

PMID: 36951980 DOI: 10.1007/s00167-023-07341-y.

References

Laskin R, van Steijn M . Total knee replacement for patients with patellofemoral arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; (367):89-95. View

Tauro B, Ackroyd C, Newman J, Shah N . The Lubinus patellofemoral arthroplasty. A five- to ten-year prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83(5):696-701. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.83b5.11577. View

Thompson N, Ruiz A, Breslin E, Beverland D . Total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing in isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16(5):607-12. DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.23570. View

Parvizi J, Stuart M, Pagnano M, Hanssen A . Total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; (392):147-52. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200111000-00018. View

Davies A, Vince A, Shepstone L, Donell S, Glasgow M . The radiologic prevalence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002; (402):206-12. DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200209000-00020. View

Mont M, Haas S, Mullick T, Hungerford D . Total knee arthroplasty for patellofemoral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002; 84(11):1977-81. DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200211000-00011. View

Wright J, Swiontkowski M, Heckman J . Introducing levels of evidence to the journal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85(1):1-3. View

Atkins D, Best D, Briss P, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S . Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004; 328(7454):1490. PMC: 428525. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490. View

Lonner J . Patellofemoral arthroplasty: pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; (428):158-65. View

10.

Ackroyd C, Chir B . Development and early results of a new patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; (436):7-13. DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000171914.94503.d1. View

11.

Leadbetter W, Ragland P, Mont M . The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty: an analysis of reported indications, contraindications, and failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005; (436):91-9. View

12.

Dalury D . Total knee replacement for patellofemoral disease. J Knee Surg. 2005; 18(4):274-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1248191. View

13.

Nicol S, Loveridge J, Weale A, Ackroyd C, Newman J . Arthritis progression after patellofemoral joint replacement. Knee. 2006; 13(4):290-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2006.04.005. View

14.

Sisto D, Sarin V . Custom patellofemoral arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006; 88(7):1475-80. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00382. View

15.

Ackroyd C, Newman J, Evans R, Eldridge J, Joslin C . The Avon patellofemoral arthroplasty: five-year survivorship and functional results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(3):310-5. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B3.18062. View

16.

Lonner J . Patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007; 15(8):495-506. DOI: 10.5435/00124635-200708000-00006. View

17.

Meding J, Wing J, Keating E, Ritter M . Total knee arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral arthritis in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 464:78-82. DOI: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181576069. View

18.

Leadbetter W, Kolisek F, Levitt R, Brooker A, Zietz P, Marker D . Patellofemoral arthroplasty: a multi-centre study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2008; 33(6):1597-601. PMC: 2899172. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-008-0692-y. View

19.

Butler J, Shannon R . Patellofemoral arthroplasty with a custom-fit femoral prosthesis. Orthopedics. 2009; 32(2):81. View

20.

Bourne R, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K . Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA: is there a difference?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 468(2):542-6. PMC: 2806999. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1046-9. View