Promising early outcomes of a novel anatomic knee system

Abstract

Purpose The primary aim of this study was to report the early clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients who have been treated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the Persona knee system. The secondary aim was to compare patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) of the Persona knee system to those of the NexGen implant. Methods A registry‐based study of a consecutive series of 112 patients (129 knees) treated with the Persona knee system from a single center was conducted. Preoperative, 1‐year, and 2‐year radiographs and PROs were analyzed. Postoperative radiographs were assessed for radiolucency and component positioning. Patients were monitored for postoperative complications and revision. Two‐year PROs were compared to a 1:1 propensity score‐matched cohort of patients treated with the NexGen knee system. Results Ninety‐five percent of knees were within literature‐defined safe ranges of the anatomical tibiofemoral axis, tibial varus/valgus angle, femoral flexion/extension angle, and tibial slope. Radiolucency was observed in 0.9% and 1.3% of knees at one and 2 years, respectively. Two‐year PRO values demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements from the preoperative values. The cumulative 2‐year percent revision was 3.0% (95% confidence interval 1.9–3.8%); there were no revisions due to implant mechanical failure. Patients treated with the Persona knee system had higher KOOS symptom (p = 0.037) and KOOS QOL (p < 0.001) scores compared to patients with the NexGen knee system. Conclusions This knee design demonstrates excellent clinical outcomes, similar or better than the NexGen knee system, at early follow‐up. Level of evidence III.

Comparative retrieval analysis of antioxidant polyethylene: bonding of vitamin-E does not reduce in-vivo surface damage

“…A novel total knee system, introduced to the European market in 2012, was developed to improve the mechanics of the knee replacement by making a more anatomically accurate knee implant [ 1 , 2 ]. A new highly crosslinked ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) formulation incorporating the antioxidant vitamin-E (alpha-tocopherol) aims to reduce oxidation and maintain wear resistance and strength throughout the life of the implant [ 3 ].…”

“…Furthermore, various kinematic and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the design benefits of the novel anatomic knee system [ 7 – 10 ]. In addition, data from registries and clinical studies show excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes at 1 to 3 years [ 1 , 11 ]. The predecessor to the novel anatomic knee design represents a successful and proven implant for TKA with scientific evidence for its remarkable clinical long-term outcome [ 12 ].…”

“…It uses inserts of type highly crosslinked UHMWPE [ 13 ]. Comparative studies between these two knee systems are very scarce in literature [ 1 , 14 ]. To date there is no comparative retrieval analysis between the components of the novel anatomic knee system and its predecessor.…”

Does the anatomic design of total knee prosthesis allow for a better component fit than its nonanatomic predecessor? A matched cohort Study

“…Previous studies have evaluated differences between cruciate retaining PERSONA and NexGen implants, but this is the first to evaluate the difference between these two posterior stabilized implants [27][28][29]. There is still a lack of studies, especially randomized-controlled studies comparing the outcome of PERSONA PS design to that of NexGen LPS.…”

Syndesmotic Fixation Utilizing a Novel Screw: A Retrospective Case Series Reporting Early Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

“…26 Furthermore, adequate time for evaluation and surveillance should be defined based on the specific implant's function and the disease process treated. 27 For example, short-term outcomes of a new syndesmotic device are valuable because osseous and ligamentous healing typically occur within several months after ankle fracture. Arbitrary requirements for lengthy follow-up (regardless of disease process) could result in initial widespread use of unsafe or ineffective implants before the literature and/or regulatory bodies drive a change in practice.…”