Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Bicruciate-Stabilized or Posterior-Stabilized Knee Implants Provided Comparable Outcomes at 2 Years

A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial of Patient Outcomes

Jennie M. Scarvell, Diana M. Perriman, Paul N. Smith, David G. Campbell, Warwick J.M. Bruce, Bo Nivbrant

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    4 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: The bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) knee arthroplasty was developed to replicate normal knee kinematics. We examined the hypothesis that patients with osteoarthritis requiring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will have better functional outcome and satisfaction with the BCS implant compared with an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial compared the clinical outcomes of a BCS implant against an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant with 2-year follow-up. Of the patients awaiting primary knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, 228 were randomized to receive either a posterior-stabilized or BCS implant. Primary outcomes were knee flexion and Oxford Knee Score. Secondary outcomes were rate of complications and adverse events (AEs). Tertiary outcomes included Knee Society Score, University of California, Los Angeles, activity score, Patella scores, EQ-5D, 6-minute walk time, and patient satisfaction. Results: Complete data were recorded for 98 posterior-stabilized implants and 97 BCS implants. Twelve patients had bilateral knee implants. There was no difference between the groups for any of the measures at either 1 or 2 years. At 2 years, knee flexion was 119 ± 0.16 and 120 ± 1.21 degrees for the posterior-stabilized and BCS implants, respectively, (mean, standard error, P = .538) and Oxford Knee Scores were 40.4 ± 0.69 and 40.0 ± 0.67 (P = .828), respectively. There were similar device-related AEs and revisions in each group (AEs 18 vs 22; P = .732; revisions 3 vs 4; P = .618). Conclusion: There was no evidence of clinical superiority of one implant over the other at 2 years.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)1-9
    Number of pages9
    JournalJournal of Arthroplasty
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2017

    Fingerprint

    Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
    Knee
    Randomized Controlled Trials
    Patella
    Los Angeles
    Knee Osteoarthritis
    Patient Satisfaction
    Biomechanical Phenomena
    Osteoarthritis
    Equipment and Supplies

    Cite this

    @article{2b24d3849ecd46bfaf8e28f48c333b15,
    title = "Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Bicruciate-Stabilized or Posterior-Stabilized Knee Implants Provided Comparable Outcomes at 2 Years: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial of Patient Outcomes",
    abstract = "Background: The bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) knee arthroplasty was developed to replicate normal knee kinematics. We examined the hypothesis that patients with osteoarthritis requiring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will have better functional outcome and satisfaction with the BCS implant compared with an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial compared the clinical outcomes of a BCS implant against an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant with 2-year follow-up. Of the patients awaiting primary knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, 228 were randomized to receive either a posterior-stabilized or BCS implant. Primary outcomes were knee flexion and Oxford Knee Score. Secondary outcomes were rate of complications and adverse events (AEs). Tertiary outcomes included Knee Society Score, University of California, Los Angeles, activity score, Patella scores, EQ-5D, 6-minute walk time, and patient satisfaction. Results: Complete data were recorded for 98 posterior-stabilized implants and 97 BCS implants. Twelve patients had bilateral knee implants. There was no difference between the groups for any of the measures at either 1 or 2 years. At 2 years, knee flexion was 119 ± 0.16 and 120 ± 1.21 degrees for the posterior-stabilized and BCS implants, respectively, (mean, standard error, P = .538) and Oxford Knee Scores were 40.4 ± 0.69 and 40.0 ± 0.67 (P = .828), respectively. There were similar device-related AEs and revisions in each group (AEs 18 vs 22; P = .732; revisions 3 vs 4; P = .618). Conclusion: There was no evidence of clinical superiority of one implant over the other at 2 years.",
    keywords = "Bicruciate-stabilized knee arthroplasty, Clinical outcomes, Oxford Knee Score, Randomized controlled trial, Total knee arthroplasty",
    author = "Scarvell, {Jennie M.} and Perriman, {Diana M.} and Smith, {Paul N.} and Campbell, {David G.} and Bruce, {Warwick J.M.} and Bo Nivbrant",
    year = "2017",
    doi = "10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.032",
    language = "English",
    pages = "1--9",
    journal = "Journal of Arthroplasty",
    issn = "0883-5403",
    publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Bicruciate-Stabilized or Posterior-Stabilized Knee Implants Provided Comparable Outcomes at 2 Years

    T2 - A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Clinical Trial of Patient Outcomes

    AU - Scarvell, Jennie M.

    AU - Perriman, Diana M.

    AU - Smith, Paul N.

    AU - Campbell, David G.

    AU - Bruce, Warwick J.M.

    AU - Nivbrant, Bo

    PY - 2017

    Y1 - 2017

    N2 - Background: The bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) knee arthroplasty was developed to replicate normal knee kinematics. We examined the hypothesis that patients with osteoarthritis requiring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will have better functional outcome and satisfaction with the BCS implant compared with an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial compared the clinical outcomes of a BCS implant against an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant with 2-year follow-up. Of the patients awaiting primary knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, 228 were randomized to receive either a posterior-stabilized or BCS implant. Primary outcomes were knee flexion and Oxford Knee Score. Secondary outcomes were rate of complications and adverse events (AEs). Tertiary outcomes included Knee Society Score, University of California, Los Angeles, activity score, Patella scores, EQ-5D, 6-minute walk time, and patient satisfaction. Results: Complete data were recorded for 98 posterior-stabilized implants and 97 BCS implants. Twelve patients had bilateral knee implants. There was no difference between the groups for any of the measures at either 1 or 2 years. At 2 years, knee flexion was 119 ± 0.16 and 120 ± 1.21 degrees for the posterior-stabilized and BCS implants, respectively, (mean, standard error, P = .538) and Oxford Knee Scores were 40.4 ± 0.69 and 40.0 ± 0.67 (P = .828), respectively. There were similar device-related AEs and revisions in each group (AEs 18 vs 22; P = .732; revisions 3 vs 4; P = .618). Conclusion: There was no evidence of clinical superiority of one implant over the other at 2 years.

    AB - Background: The bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) knee arthroplasty was developed to replicate normal knee kinematics. We examined the hypothesis that patients with osteoarthritis requiring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will have better functional outcome and satisfaction with the BCS implant compared with an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial compared the clinical outcomes of a BCS implant against an established posterior cruciate-stabilized implant with 2-year follow-up. Of the patients awaiting primary knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, 228 were randomized to receive either a posterior-stabilized or BCS implant. Primary outcomes were knee flexion and Oxford Knee Score. Secondary outcomes were rate of complications and adverse events (AEs). Tertiary outcomes included Knee Society Score, University of California, Los Angeles, activity score, Patella scores, EQ-5D, 6-minute walk time, and patient satisfaction. Results: Complete data were recorded for 98 posterior-stabilized implants and 97 BCS implants. Twelve patients had bilateral knee implants. There was no difference between the groups for any of the measures at either 1 or 2 years. At 2 years, knee flexion was 119 ± 0.16 and 120 ± 1.21 degrees for the posterior-stabilized and BCS implants, respectively, (mean, standard error, P = .538) and Oxford Knee Scores were 40.4 ± 0.69 and 40.0 ± 0.67 (P = .828), respectively. There were similar device-related AEs and revisions in each group (AEs 18 vs 22; P = .732; revisions 3 vs 4; P = .618). Conclusion: There was no evidence of clinical superiority of one implant over the other at 2 years.

    KW - Bicruciate-stabilized knee arthroplasty

    KW - Clinical outcomes

    KW - Oxford Knee Score

    KW - Randomized controlled trial

    KW - Total knee arthroplasty

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021092158&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.032

    DO - 10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.032

    M3 - Article

    SP - 1

    EP - 9

    JO - Journal of Arthroplasty

    JF - Journal of Arthroplasty

    SN - 0883-5403

    ER -