ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The gliding surface of total knee endoprostheses is exposed to high loads due to patient weight and activity. These implant components are typically manufactured from ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). Crosslinking of UHMWPE by ionizing radiation results in higher wear resistance but induces the formation of free radicals which impair mechanical properties after contact with oxygen. Medium-crosslinked UHMWPE enriched with vitamin E (MXE) provides a balance between the parameters for a sustainable gliding surface, i.e., mechanical strength, wear resistance, particle size, and oxidation stability. Therefore, a gliding surface for knee endoprostheses made up from this material was developed, certified, and launched. The aim of this study is to compare this new gliding surface to the established predecessor in a non-inferiority design. METHODS: This multicenter, binational randomized controlled trial will enroll patients with knee osteoarthritis eligible for knee arthroplasty with the index device. Patients will be treated with a knee endoprosthesis with either MXE or a standard gliding surface. Patients will be blinded regarding their treatment. After implantation of the devices, patients will be followed up for 10 years. Besides clinical and patient-related outcomes, radiological data will be collected. In case of revision, the gliding surface will be analyzed biomechanically and regarding the oxidative profile. DISCUSSION: The comparison between MXE and the standard gliding surface in this study will provide clinical data to confirm preceding biomechanical results in vivo. It is assumed that material-related differences will be identified, i.e., that the new material will be less sensitive to wear and creep. This may become obvious in biomechanical analyses of retrieved implants from revised patients and in radiologic analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04618016. Registered 27 October 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04618016?term=vikep&checkSpell=false&rank=1 . All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set can be found in Additional file 1.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Polyethylene , Humans , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Knee Joint , Oxidation-Reduction , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Multicenter Studies as TopicABSTRACT
PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS: Patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) uses 3D preoperative imaging to produce individualized cutting blocks specific to patients' anatomy and according to the preoperative plan with the aim to reduce the number of mechanical leg alignment (MLA) outliers, to improve implant positioning and to decrease surgery time. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a specific PSI in comparison with standard instrumentation (SI) in reducing the number of MLA outliers. It was hypothesized that the number of MLA outliers would be significantly lower in the PSI group. METHODS: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was implemented. There were 59 patients in the PSI group and 66 in the SI group. The absolute number of outliers outside the ± 3° target neutral MLA was compared between the groups with a Chi-square test. As secondary outcomes, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were compared between the groups preoperatively and at 90-day follow-up. RESULTS: There were 15 (26.3%) MLA outliers in the PSI group and 8 (12.3%) in the SI group. The number of outliers was not independent from the group ( X2 (1) = 3.8, p = 0.04; Relative risk = 1.5). Preoperatively, there were no significant differences between the groups when comparing their KSS and KOOS sub-scores. At 90 days postoperatively, the patients in the SI group showed better KOOS-Quality of Life (KOSS-QOL) in comparison with the PSI group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The use of PSI did not significantly reduce the number of MLA outliers in comparison with SI. There were no differences when comparing the achieved mean MLA of both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, prospective randomized controlled trial.
