Do We Need Gender-specific Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Center for Joint Preservation and Replacement, Rubin Institute for Advanced Orthopedics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, 2401 West Belvedere Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215, USA.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.77). 07/2011; 469(7):1852-8. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1769-2
Source: PubMed


Gender-specific differences in knee and hip anatomy have been well documented. Although it has been accepted these differences exist, there is controversy regarding if and how these differences should be addressed with gender-specific implant designs.
(1) What are the anatomic and morphologic differences, if any, in the knee and hip between men and women? (2) Do gender-specific TKA designs provide better clinical functioning, survivorship, and improved fit in women? (3) How have anatomic differences in the hip been addressed, if at all, by THA?
We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE database to identify all articles reviewing basic science and clinical outcomes of gender-specific total knee and total hip implants. From these, we reviewed 253 studies.
The anatomic studies elucidated multiple differences in the anatomy of knees and hips between men and women. All reviewed studies report similar clinical function and satisfaction scores between men and women for gender-specific TKA and no improvement in these scores when comparing gender-specific TKA to unisex TKA. Current modularity in THA appears to accommodate any anatomic differences in the hip.
Based on the available literature, there is no difference in the outcome of patients with a gender-specific knee arthroplasty versus a unisex arthroplasty. It does not appear gender-specific THAs would provide any benefit over current systems.

5 Reads
  • Source
    • "The need for gender-specific knee arthroplasties is based on the following assumptions: (1) women have results that are inferior to those of men after TKA, and (2) traditional prosthesis designs have failed to address these differences. A number of clinical studies have refuted the idea that women have worse outcomes than men using traditional total knee designs (MacDonald et al. 2008, Merchant et al. 2008, Ritter et al. 2008, Dalury et al. 2009, Johnson et al. 2011). In fact, some studies have found that women achieve essentially the same results as men, or even better (Merchant et al. 2008, Parsley et al. 2010, O'Connor 2011). "
    [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. Methods 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. Results 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. Interpretation 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

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Specific anatomic differences are believed to account for gender-specific function and health-related quality of life after TKA. However, there are conflicting data in the literature regarding these gender-specific outcomes, especially as woman appear to have surgery later in the course of the disease compared with men. We asked whether (1) women had worse knee function and health-related quality of life after TKA compared with men, (2) lower improvements in scores, and (3) slower recovery after surgery. Using a cohort study design, we retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from three multicenter randomized controlled trials evaluating rehabilitation measures after standard unisex knee arthroplasty in 494 patients (141 men and 353 women). The primary outcome was self-reported physical function as measured by the WOMAC at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the pain and stiffness scales of the WOMAC and the physical and mental component summaries of the SF-36. At the time of surgery, the women were on average older (70.8 versus 67.8 years), had lower mean physical function (55 versus 47), higher mean pain scores (54 versus 48), and greater stiffness (54 versus 46) as measured by the WOMAC. At the 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month followups, men and women had similar WOMAC scores. Improvements were greater for women compared with men for WOMAC function and pain subscale scores at the 3-month (function, 28 versus 23; pain, 32 versus 25) and 6-month followups (function, 32 versus 27; pain, 36 versus 31). At the 12- and 24-month followups we noted no differences in improvement between men and women. Although women had greater functional limitations at the time of surgery than men, they recover faster early after standard TKA although function is similar at 12 and 24 months. Women also had greater improvement of WOMAC scores after standard TKA than men. Level II, prognostic study. See the guidelines for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 06/2011; 469(10):2855-65. DOI:10.1007/s11999-011-1921-z · 2.77 Impact Factor
Show more


5 Reads
Available from