Do we need a gender-specific total knee replacement? A randomised controlled trial comparing a high-flex and a gender-specific posterior design
University Hospital of Hvidovre, Department of Orthopedics, Kettegård Allé 30, 2650 Hvidovre, Denmark. The Bone & Joint Journal
(Impact Factor: 3.31).
06/2012; 94(6):787-92. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B6.28781
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a gender-specific high-flexion posterior-stabilised (PS) total knee replacement (TKR) would offer advantages over a high-flex PS TKR regarding range of movement (ROM), 'feel' of the knee, pain and satisfaction, as well as during activity. A total of 24 female patients with bilateral osteoarthritis entered this prospective, blind randomised trial in which they received a high-flex PS TKR in one knee and a gender-specific high-flexion PS TKR in the other knee. At follow-up, patients were assessed clinically measuring ROM, and questioned about pain, satisfaction and daily 'feel' of each knee. Patients underwent gait analysis pre-operatively and at one year, which yielded kinematic, kinetic and temporospatial parameters indicative of knee function during gait. At final follow-up we found no statistically significant differences in ROM (p = 0.82). The median pain score was 0 (0 to 8) in both groups (p = 0.95). The median satisfaction score was 9 (4 to 10) in the high-flex group and 8 (0 to 10) in the gender-specific group (p = 0.98). The median 'feel' score was 9 (3 to 10) in the high-flex group and 8 (0 to 10) in the gender-specific group (p = 0.66). Gait analysis showed no statistically significant differences between the two prosthetic designs in any kinematic, kinetic or temporospatial parameters. Both designs produced good clinical results with significant improvements in several gait parameters without evidence of any advantage in the gender-specific design.
Available from: Tao Cheng
- "Gait analysis could provide more objective parameters , such as measurements of sagittal plane kinematics and kinetics (Börjesson et al. 2005, Catani et al. 2012). A recent gait analysis study suggested that there was no difference between the 2 knee prosthesis designs in terms of kinematic, kinetic, and temporo-spatial parameters (Thomsen et al. 2012). Given the inadequate correlations between knee scores and gait parameters, further gait analysis studies monitoring the functional benefit of design in TKAs are needed (Liebensteiner et al. 2008). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background and purpose
There is no consensus regarding the clinical relevance of gender-speciﬁc prostheses in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We summarize the current best evidence in a comparison of clinical and radiographic outcomes between gender-speciﬁc prostheses and standard unisex prostheses in female patients.
We used the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Science Citation Index, and Scopus databases. We included randomized controlled trials published up to January 2013 that compared gender-speciﬁc prostheses with standard unisex prostheses in female patients who underwent primary TKAs.
6 trials involving 423 patients with 846 knee joints met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 designs regarding pain, range of motion (ROM), knee scores, satisfaction, preference, complications, and radiographic results. The gender-specific design (Gender Solutions; Zimmer Inc, Warsaw, Indiana) reduced the prevalence of overhang. However, it had less overall coverage of the femoral condyles compared to the unisex group. In fact, the femoral prosthesis in the standard unisex group matched better than that in the gender-speciﬁc group.
Gender-speciﬁc prostheses do not appear to confer any beneﬁt in terms of clinician- and patient-reported outcomes for the female knee.
Acta Orthopaedica 06/2014; 85(4):1-7. DOI:10.3109/17453674.2014.931194 · 2.77 Impact Factor
Zhonghua yi xue za zhi 09/2012; 92(35):2449-51. DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2012.35.001
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a slow, chronic joint disease characterized by focal degeneration of articular cartilage and alterations of the chemical and mechanical articular function and also major cause of pain and physical disability. There is clinical evidence that increasing dietary n-3 relative to n-6 may be beneficial in terms of symptom management in humans but not all studies conclude that dietary n-3 PUFA supplementation is of benefit, in the treatment of OA. Our recent studies highlight the effect of a biomarine compound (LD-1227) on MMPs, collagen metabolism and on chondrocyte inflammatory markers. Thus, the aim of the present work was to test such bioactive compound versus a common nutraceutical intervention (glucosamine/chrondroitin sulfate) in knee osteoarthritis patients. The patients population consisted of 60 subjects with a recent diagnosis of knee osteoarthririts of mild-moderate severity. Patients were randomized in a double-blind study comparing LD-1227 (group A) versus a mixture of glucosamine (500 mg), chondroitin sulfate (400 mg) (group B). Patients were allowed their established painkillers on demand. At 4, 9 and 18 weeks patients were evaluated as for: VAS score assessing pain at rest, and during physical exercise, Lequesne index, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale and KOOS scale. Moreover, serum concentrations of IL-6, IL-β, CRP, TNF-sR1 and TNF-sR2 were assessed. As compared to GC treatment, LD-1227 yielded a quicker and higher degree of improvement of the whole clinical indexes and a lower NSAIDs use at the end of the study. LD-1227 brought about also a more significant downregulation of the tested cytokines cascade. Taken overall, these data suggest that LD-1227 has the potential to be included in the nutraceutical armamentarium in the management of OA.
Acta bio-medica: Atenei Parmensis 04/2013; 84(1):30-7.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.