Odumenya, M. (Michelle), McGuinness, Katie, Achten, Juul, Parsons, Nicholas R., Spalding, Tim and Costa, Matthew L.. (2011) The Warwick patellofemoral arthroplasty trial : a randomised clinical trial of total knee arthroplasty versus patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with severe arthritis of the patellofemoral joint. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Vol.12 (No.1). p. 265. ISSN 1471-2474

Preview

PDF WRAP_Odumenya_1471-2474-12-265.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader Download (325Kb)

Abstract

Background Severe arthritis of the knee is a disabling condition, with over 50,000 knee replacements performed each year in the UK. Isolated patellofemoral joint arthritis occurs in over 10% of these patients with the treatment options being patellofemoral arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty. Whilst many surgeons believe total knee arthroplasty is the 'gold standard' treatment for severe knee arthritis, patellofemoral arthroplasty has certain potential advantages. Primarily, because this operation allows the patient to keep the majority of their own knee joint; preserving bone-stock and the patients' own ligaments. Patellofemoral arthroplasty has also been recognised as a less 'invasive' operation than primary total knee arthroplasty, facilitating a more rapid recovery. There are currently no published results of randomised clinical trials comparing the two arthroplasty techniques. The primary objective of the current study is to assess whether there is a difference in functional knee scores and quality of life outcome assessments at one year post-operation between patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. The secondary objective is to assess the complication rates for both procedures. Methods/design Patients who are deemed suitable, by an Orthopaedic Consultant, for patellofemoral arthroplasty and medically fit for surgery are eligible to take part in this trial. The consenting patients will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation to a total knee or patellofemoral arthroplasty. The randomisation sequence will be computer generated and administered by a central independent randomisation service. Following consent, all participants will have their knee function, quality of life and physical activity level assessed through questionnaires. The assigned surgery will then be performed using the preferred technique and implant of the operating surgeon. The first post-operative assessments will take place at six weeks, followed by further assessments at 3, 6 and 12 months. At each assessment time point all complications will be recorded. In addition, community and social care services usage will be collected using a patient questionnaire at 3, 6 & 12 months. The patients will then be sent an annual postal questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask about any problems, knee pain and function following their knee arthroplasty to monitor long-term function and failure rates. Discussion This trial is expected to deliver results in early 2013.

[error in script] [error in script]

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	R Medicine > RD Surgery
Divisions:	Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Patellofemoral joint -- Surgery, Arthroplasty, Total knee replacement, Arthritis -- Treatment
Journal or Publication Title:	BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Publisher:	Bio Med Central
ISSN:	1471-2474
Date:	23 November 2011
Volume:	Vol.12
Number:	No.1
Page Range:	p. 265
Identification Number:	10.1186/1471-2474-12-265
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	Action Medical Research (AMR)
References:	1. Davies AP, Vince AS, Shepstone L, Donell ST, Glasgow MM: The radiologic prevalence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002, 402:206-212. 2. Ackroyd CE: Development and early results of a new patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 436:7-13. 3. Arciero RA, Toomey HE: Patellofemoral arthroplasty. 3-year to 9-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988, 236:60-71. 4. Leadbetter WB, Ragland PS, Mont MA: The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty - An analysis of reported indications, contraindications, and failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 436:91-99. 5. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Khefacha A: Long-term results with the first patellotemoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 436:47-54. 6. Kooijman HJ, Driessen A, van Horn JR: Long-term results of patellofemoral arthroplasty - A report of 56 arthroplasties with 17 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003, 85(6):836-840. 7. Odumenya M, Costa ML, Parsons N, Achten J, Dhillon M, Krikler SJ: The Avon patellofemoral joint replacement FIVE-YEAR RESULTS FROM AN INDEPENDENT CENTRE. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010, 92(1):56-60. 8. Starks I, Roberts S, White SH: The Avon patellofemoral joint replacement INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF EARLY FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009, 91(12):1579-1582. 9. Ishii Y, Matsuda Y, Sakata S, Onda N, Omori G: Primary total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis I total knee prosthesis: a 5- to 10-year follow-up study. Knee 2005, 12(5):341-345. 10. Mont MA, Haas S, Mullick T, Hungerford DS: Total knee arthroplasty for patellofemoral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002, 84(11):1977-1981. 11. Laskin RS, van Steijn M: Total knee replacement for patients with patellofemoral arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999, , 367: 89-95. 12. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15(12):1833-1840. 13. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998, 80(1):63-69. 14. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN: Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, 248:13-14. 15. The EuroQol Group: EuroQol- a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16(3):199-208. 16. Salén BA, Spangfort EV, Nygren L, Nordemar R: The disability rating index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in the clinical settings. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:1423-1434. 17. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC: Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty 1998, 13:890-895. 18. Bellamy N: Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials. J Rheumatol 1995, 22(Suppl 43):49-51. 19. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G: Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum 2001, 45(4):384-391. 20. Rooks DS, Huang J, Bierbaum BE, Bolus SA, Rubano J, Connolly CE, Alpert S, Iversen MD, Katz JN: Effect of preoperative exercise on measures of functional status in men and women under going total hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum 2006, 55(5):700-708.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/40848

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item