Effects of age and sex on patient-reported outcomes following total knee arthroplasty with a rotating bearing tibial platform design: A single-surgeon practice registry study

Manaal Fatima, Corey Scholes, John Ireland
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.15.23289477

Abstract

Purpose Younger female patients presenting with end-stage osteoarthritis may benefit from a rotating bearing (RB) knee (RBK) design in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aims of this study were to report on the clinical outcomes of a RB RBK, and investigate whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are influenced by age at surgery and sex, as well as the interaction between age and sex when controlled for general health, baseline knee function and laterality.

Methods PROMs including the European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L), visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were retrieved from a consecutive cohort of patients receiving a primary TKA with a posterior stabilised (PS) RBK implant. Regression analysis was performed to test the interaction between age and sex on OKS at minimum 12 month follow-up. An imputed dataset was used for the analysis.

Results A total of 352 patients and 420 treatments were included for the cohort analysis. Baseline scores for the imputed dataset were 0.52 (SD 0.22) for the EQ-5D Index,and 22.3 (SD 8.5) for the OKS. Postoperative OKS (37.8, SD 9.4) was observed at an average follow-up of 2 years (range 1 - 6 years). Age at surgery, sex, or their interaction had no statistically discernible relationship with their OKS-post score, or with the probability of exceeding patient acceptable symptom state.

Conclusions PROMs were not influenced by age at surgery and sex, or the interaction between age and sex. However, the PS-RB design yielded good patient-reported outcomes for the overall cohort with low rates of complications.

Introduction

Preoperative optimisation of patients to improve outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continues to garner attention in the contemporary literature. Age and sex are associated with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and revision risk, with younger patients more likely to require revision surgery (Adie et al., 2019), and with female sex associated with poorer outcomes (Edwards et al., 2018; Wieczorek et al., 2020), and lower utilisation of TKA (Borkhoff et al., 2011). Data from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) also reveals a higher cumulative percent revision for females aged 65-74 compared to those aged 75 and over (American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR): 2021 Annual Report, 2021)

Younger females are predisposed to a significantly larger range of total knee rotation than males at 30°, 60° and 90° flexion angles (Almquist et al., 2013) and torsional forces (Schmitz et al., 2008) due to anatomical variations, particularly in the presence of osteoarthritis (Koh et al., 2020), which should be considered during TKA with respect to rotational component alignment (Cho et al., 2021). Discrepancies between the allowable rotation in fixed-bearing (FB) designs and the native knee may favour rotating bearings (RB) in younger females. However, this concept has yet to be explored in detail and there remains little guidance for matching patients to the most suitable implant design considering bearing mobility and stability.

Comparable outcomes have been observed in FB and RB designs (Hantouly et al., 2021), while RB designs may be advantageous for medium to long term PROMs and revision risk within posterior-stabilised (PS) designs (Hao & Wang, 2021). When considering implant stability alone, clinically relevant differences between minimally-stabilised (MS) and PS TKA are lacking (Jiang et al., 2016), although PS superiority in clinical outcomes and range of motion (ROM) may make it suitable for patients with high functional demands (Longo et al., 2017). Within MS designs, the relevant literature is limited by low to moderate evidence quality and similarity of outcomes between bearing designs within MS cohorts (Hofstede et al., 2015), however superior long-term PROMs in RB knees have been observed (Powell et al., 2018) (Hofstede et al., 2015). Within PS, several randomised trials have reported equivalent results for anterior knee pain (Breugem et al., 2014; Feczko et al., 2017), ROM and overall knee function (Abdel et al., 2018; Kalisvaart et al., 2012).

The purported benefits of RB designs include better durability, ROM and function, as well as the ability to accommodate femorotibial rotational mismatch, thus reducing contact stresses and polyethylene wear (Abdel et al., 2018). However, the clinical superiority of one design over the other is inconclusive (Killen et al., 2020; Moskal & Capps, 2014; Sohn et al., 2023), and it remains unknown whether a PS-RB prosthesis can present an optimal match for younger females presenting with end-stage knee osteoarthritis.

To address this, the aim of this study was to report on the clinical outcomes of a second-generation RB implant, and investigate whether PROMs are influenced by age at surgery and sex, as well as the interaction between age and sex when controlled for general health, baseline knee function and laterality, particularly in younger females who undergo a primary TKA with a RBK in a single-surgeon private practice.

Methods

Patient selection

A consecutive cohort of patients who underwent primary TKA, with a PS-RB prosthesis (Optetrak, Exactech Inc, Florida USA) were identified from the senior author’s (JI) clinical outcomes registry (A prospective assessment of patient outcomes following joint replacement surgery (PAPOJRS); ACTRN12618000317291). Patients were excluded from the analysis if they underwent a revision procedure from a previous TKA (including a previous unicompartmental procedure), were lost to follow-up or had not provided consent for use of clinical data for research. Patients were also excluded due to clinical diagnosis of mental/neurological illness, psychological impairment or insufficient English language capacity that precluded their ability to complete PROMs. Treatment records were excluded from the analysis if there was no surgery date recorded or if the surgery was conducted prior to May 2014 (date when the operating surgeon switched to the implant of interest), or if the procedure could not be verified to include the implant of interest. The clinical outcomes registry was approved for research purposes by the Human Ethics Research Committee (HREC) at Bellberry (HREC number 2017-07-499).

Surgical Technique

All surgeries were performed by the senior author (JI) as previously described (Scholes et al., 2019) and as per the manufacturer’s recommended technique. Imageless navigation (GPS, Exactech Inc, Florida USA) was used to align the femoral and tibial cuts in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions (Exactech Inc, Florida, USA), with restrictive kinematic alignment (Vanlommel et al., 2013) used to plan bone cuts on the femur to more closely resemble the orientation of the articular surface with compromise made on the tibial orientation for large tibial slopes. Ligamentous balance was reassessed with a tensioning device. Patellar resurfacing was performed in all patients, except for those deemed to have too thin a patella to resect. Components were cemented to achieve fixation and stability confirmed with manual stress applied in the sagittal and coronal planes. The knee was closed in layers with fibrin glue applied for wound closure. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (rivaroxaban 10mg) was administered orally for prevention of thromboembolic complications. Patient mobilisation occurred the following morning after surgery with weight bearing as tolerated. Patients were discharged home, or to an inpatient rehabilitation facility upon demonstration of independent mobilisation, on average by day four. Physiotherapy was commenced as soon as practical and following discharge for approximately six weeks. The expectation following surgery was a minimum ROM of 80° by 6 weeks and 100° of flexion by 12 weeks. If this goal was not achieved, then a manipulation under anaesthesia was undertaken. If the patient was osteoporotic or exceeded the 12 weeks an arthroscopic release was performed to maximise the ROM.

Clinical outcomes

PROMs were retrieved preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1, 2, 5 years after surgery during consultations with the operating surgeon and stored in the electronic clinical research database (Socrates v7, Ortholink, Aus), and reoperations were logged in the practice management system (Bluechip v4.0.2, MedicalDirector, Australia). PROMs questionnaires were routinely filled by the patients at their follow-up appointments, and included the EQ-5D-5L Index (European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five Level Scale (Herdman et al., 2011)), including mobility, usual activities, self-care, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression and overall visual analogue scale (VAS) subscales; the Knee Society Score (KSS); and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Patients that missed the 1, 2 and 5 year follow-ups were surveyed by post, with results transcribed to the registry database manually. The most recent results with a minimum follow-up of 10 months (305 days) were used for the analysis.

Data Analysis

A STROBE diagram (von Elm et al., 2007) was compiled to indicate the analysis workflow for the single-surgeon cohort. The incidence and nature of reoperations were summarised. EQ-5D-5L subscales (mobility, usual activities, self-care, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression, overall VAS), KSS-Function (KSS-F) and OKS were exported and summarised with descriptive statistics.

Missing Data

Missing data for preoperative EQ-5D Index (EQ-5D Index-pre) and OKS (OKS-pre), and postoperative OKS (OKS-post) were imputed with sequential chained equations based on partial mean matching drawing on a pool of 3 nearest neighbours (k) for a total of 20 (m) imputed datasets. The sequence was EQ-5D Index, OKS-pre and OKS-post. Posterior estimates of model parameters were obtained using sampling replacement (bootstrap). The variables included in the imputation model were:

  • Age at surgery (years)

  • Sex (male; female)

  • Bilateral status (bilateral; unilateral)

  • Subsequent treatment status (yes; no)

  • Surgery date from first case (days)

  • Postcode

  • Estimated median annual income ($/year)

The imputation process was performed using the mi function of Stata (v16.1, StataCorp LLC, USA). The imputed data was used for the primary analysis.

Statistical Analysis

Baseline descriptives of the practice cohort were calculated using the misum function (Klein, 2011) on the imputed dataset. To assess the main effects and interaction effects of age at surgery and sex on OKS postoperatively, a mixed effects linear model was compiled with bilateral status (unilateral vs bilateral) as a random effect, using the imputed dataset. The model was fit with residual maximum likelihood. The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the postoperative OKS (37 points) (Keurentjes et al., 2014) was also used to classify patients. The PASS threshold was applied to the imputed dataset and binary logistic regression was used to determine the relationship between age at surgery and sex on OKS PASS classification. All statistical analyses were performed in Stata (SE v16.1).

Results

Cohort Analysis Patient characteristics

A sample of 511 treatment records was retrieved from the PAPOJRS practice registry. Forty-one records were excluded due to no surgery date recorded or the surgery was conducted prior to May 2014, 11 were excluded due to revision surgery, 37 did not meet the postoperative follow-up requirements, and 2 records were excluded because they could not be verified to include the implant of interest. Bilateral treatments accounted for 32% of the records, with a total of 352 patients and 420 treatments in the analysis cohort (Figure 1).

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

STROBE flow diagram (von Elm et al., 2007) of patient inclusion into the data analysis.

The cohort comprised 52% females, with an overall mean age of 66.9 years at surgery (SD 9.0) and BMI of 32.1 kgm2 (SD 6). A total of 71 (16.9%) subsequent visits within a median of 189 days (interquartile range (IQR) 95 - 492) were recorded, of which 40 (9.52%) were classified as complications, and required manipulation under anaesthetic (N=26), reoperation (N=9) or revision surgery (N=5). The remaining subsequent visits comprised contralateral joint replacements, as well as operations to other joints (e.g. shoulder or hip).

Patient-reported outcomes Missing analysis

PROMs missing rates prior to applying the multiple imputation model were 12.6% for the EQ-5D Index, 7.8% for the OKS preoperatively, and 24.8% for the OKS postoperatively.

Baseline scores for the imputed dataset were 0.52 (SD 0.22) for the EQ-5D Index,and 22.3 (SD 8.5) for the OKS. Postoperative OKS (37.8, SD 9.4) was observed at an average follow-up of 2 years (range 1 - 6 years).

Oxford Knee Score

Age at surgery, sex, or their interaction term had no statistically discernible relationship with OKS-post score (Table 1). Age at surgery plotted against OKS-post for males and females (Figure 2) illustrates the between-patient variability. Bilateral status as a random effect had little influence on OKS variation (0.04, se = 0.46).

View this table:
Table 1:

Model summary of mixed effects OKS-post (OKS as a continuous variable)

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Imputed OKSPost (m = 1) plotted against age at surgery for females (N = 216) and males (N = 204)

The proportion of patients estimated to exceed PASS for the imputed OKS at postoperative follow up was 63.2% (95%CI 58.2 - 68.3). No statistically discernible relationship was observed between age, sex or their interaction term with the probability of exceeding PASS in this patient group (Table 2).

View this table:
Table 2:

Model summary of logistic regression of OKS PASS (OKS as a binary variable)

Discussion

The aim of this study was to report on the clinical outcomes of a second-generation RB implant specifically in younger females, and to determine whether PROMs are influenced by age at surgery and sex, as well as the interaction between age and sex. When controlled for general health, baseline knee function and laterality, postoperative OKS in this cohort was not linearly associated with age at surgery or sex (as main effects or as an interaction), and no discernable differences in outcomes were noted between the sexes.

While the clinical outcomes of younger females in this cohort were not markedly superior, the overall cohort reported good outcomes with the PS-RB implant. The baseline EQ-5D Index for this cohort was 0.52, which is lower than the population norm for a similar age group (65-74 years) in New Zealand (0.8), but comparable to what has previously been reported for arthroplasty preoperatively (0.53) (Bilbao et al., 2020) and preoperatively for an previous cohort from our group platform knee (0.57)* (Scholes et al., 2019). The baseline OKS of 22.3 was also similar to what has been reported for RB designs (Böhler et al., 2017; Jonas et al., 2015; Scholes et al., 2019). At two years, postoperative OKS scores were 37.8 for this cohort, with 63.2% (CI 58-67) exceeding PASS. Scholes et al (Scholes et al., 2019) previously reported a postoperative OKS of 42 at 2.2 years, with 66% exceeding PASS. Post-hoc calculation of confidence intervals (59-72%), indicated comparable PASS rates between the two studies, typical of TKA cohorts (Connelly et al., 2020), even across varying outcome measures (Polascik et al., 2020). The rate of complications in this series (∼10%) is lower than what has been reported for other RBK designs (Scholes et al., 2019), which can be as high as ∼54% based on national registry data for TKA patients (Heo et al., 2020).

There is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the association between PROMs and age at surgery or sex. Studies that have considered the main effects (Dew, 2008) of age have reported inconsistent associations with postoperative outcomes (Lee et al., 2020). While some studies reported that age was not related to PROMs in TKA, others reported that older patients had better postoperative outcomes, and some reported the opposite. In studies that looked at OKS, some reported no effects of age on postoperative OKS (Clement et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2013), while another reported that younger patients (<60 years) reported the worst scores (Townsend et al., 2018). When considering the main effects of sex as an independent variable on postoperative OKS, a large registry study from the United Kingdom reported that preoperative knee scores were worst in female patients, as well as younger patients and patients from deprived areas (area deprivation scores were calculated from postal codes) (Edwards et al., 2018). These sociodemographic differences were maintained at six months postoperatively, even when adjusted for confounding factors, suggesting that the main drivers of variation in symptoms across the disease course were factors upstream of surgery.

Few studies consider interaction effects, i.e. the simultaneous effect of two or more independent variables on at least one dependent variable in which their joint effect is significantly greater (or significantly less) than the sum of the parts (Kasim, 2008). In this cohort, not only did age at surgery and sex have no statistically discernible relationship with OKS-post score, but the interaction between age at surgery and sex also did not yield any statistically significant relationship. Edwards et al reported some statistical evidence of an interaction between age and sex (likelihood ratio test, p<0.001) and between age and deprivation (likelihood ratio test, p<0.001), such that the apparent disadvantage of younger age was greater in female patients than in male patients and the disadvantage of a greater area deprivation seemed to affect younger people more strongly than older people. However, the interaction was not deemed to be meaningful, as the differences in effects were of a very small magnitude in a large sample.

The findings of this study need to be interpreted in light of some limitations. The use of multiple imputation is an accepted technique for addressing the issue of missing data in observational research (Sterne et al., 2009), however it does rely on the assumption that the data is missing at random. While this assumption is not directly testable, in the present study all patients were offered an equal opportunity to participate through the same data collection process. The OKS is one of the most frequently used PROMs in TKA studies (Siljander et al., 2018), and higher response rates have been reported for it than for other PROMs (Dowsey & Choong, 2013). However, the scale in the OKS does not accommodate for the complex and interrelated nature of many patients’ problems, nor is there any allowance for reporting of comorbidities (Whitehouse et al., 2005). Applicability of the OKS in culturally diverse populations may also be limited due to differences in functional demands, ethnicity-specific necessities, and social expectations (Kulkarni et al., 2023). Moreover, the wide variety of different scoring systems makes standardisation and cross-study comparison between different surgical techniques extremely difficult (Siljander et al., 2018). The outcomes of the present study may be impacted by bias with respect to surgeon preferences and experience regarding implant selection, and, the generalisability of the single-surgeon cohort analysis may be rightly questioned. While we have attempted to frame the findings in the context of the broader literature, replication analyses with larger datasets are warranted to confirm the findings presented here.

Conclusion

This posterior-stabilised rotating bearing knee design provides good outcomes at a minimum of 12 months follow-up and relatively low rates of complications. The data do not support the hypothesis that younger females display superior postoperative pain and function to other patient subgroups. Further work is required to elucidate whether a specific implant design (considering bearing stability and mobility) is better suited for younger females presenting with end-stage knee osteoarthritis.

Data Availability

Data produced in the present study may be available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Funding and Declarations

This study was supported by a grant from Exactech Inc (USA).

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the efforts of Claire Sinclair in maintaining the PAPOJRS registry.

Footnotes

  • ↵* Converted from median dimension scores using the United Kingdom value set calculator

References

  1. ↵
    Abdel, M. P., Tibbo, M. E., Stuart, M. J., Trousdale, R. T., Hanssen, A. D., & Pagnano, M. W. (2018). A randomized controlled trial of fixedversus mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a follow-up at a mean of ten years. The Bone &Joint Journal, 100-B(7), 925–929.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    Adie, S., Harris, I., Chuan, A., Lewis, P., & Naylor, J. M. (2019). Selecting and optimising patients for total knee arthroplasty. The Medical Journal of Australia, 210(3), 135–141.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    Almquist, P. O., Ekdahl, C., Isberg, P.-E., &Fridén, T. (2013). Knee rotation in healthy individuals related to age and gender. Journal of Orthopaedic Research: Official Publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society, 31(1), 23–28.
    OpenUrl
  4. American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR): 2021 Annual Report. (2021). American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).
  5. ↵
    Bilbao, A., Martín-Fernández, J., García-Pérez, L., Arenaza, J. C., Ariza-Cardiel, G., Ramallo-Fariña, Y., & Ansola, L. (2020). Mapping WOMAC Onto the EQ-5D-5L Utility Index in Patients With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 23(3), 379–387.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    Böhler, C., Kolbitsch, P., Schuh, R., Lass, R., Kubista, B., & Giurea, A. (2017). Midterm Results of a New Rotating Hinge Knee Implant: A 5-Year Follow-Up. BioMed Research International, 2017, 7532745.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    Borkhoff, C. M., Hawker, G. A., & Wright, J. G. (2011). Patient gender affects the referral and recommendation for total joint arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 469(7), 1829–1837.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Breugem, S. J. M., van Ooij, B., Haverkamp, D., Sierevelt, I. N., & van Dijk, C. N. (2014). No difference in anterior knee pain between a fixed and a mobile posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty after 7.9 years. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: Official Journal of the ESSKA, 22(3), 509–516.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    Cho, B.-W., Hong, H.-T., Koh, Y.-G., Choi, J., Park, K.-K., & Kang, K.-T. (2021). Analysis of Gender Differences in the Rotational Alignment of the Distal Femur in Kinematically Aligned and Mechanically Aligned Total Knee Arthroplasty. Journal of Clinical Medicine Research, 10(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163691
  10. ↵
    Clement, N. D., MacDonald, D., Howie, C. R., & Biant, L. C. (2011). The outcome of primary total hip and knee arthroplasty in patients aged 80 years or more. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 93(9), 1265–1270.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Connelly, J. W., Galea, V. P., Rojanasopondist, P., Nielsen, C. S., Bragdon, C. R., Kappel, A., Huddleston, J. I., 3rd., Malchau, H., & Troelsen, A. (2020). Which preoperative factors are associated with not attaining acceptable levels of pain and function after TKA? Findings from an international multicenter study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 478(5), 1019–1028.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. P. J. Lavrakas
    Dew, D. (2008). Main Effect. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
  13. ↵
    Dowsey, M. M., & Choong, P. F. M. (2013). The utility of outcome measures in total knee replacement surgery. International Journal of Rheumatology, 2013, 506518.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    Edwards, H. B., Smith, M., Herrett, E., MacGregor, A., Blom, A., & Ben-Shlomo, Y. (2018). The Effect of Age, Sex, Area Deprivation, and Living Arrangements on Total Knee Replacement Outcomes: A Study Involving the United Kingdom National Joint Registry Dataset. JB &JS Open Access, 3(2), e0042.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    Feczko, P. Z., Jutten, L. M., van Steyn, M. J., Deckers, P., Emans, P. J., & Arts, J. J. (2017). Comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty in terms of patellofemoral pain and function: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 18(1), 279.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    Hantouly, A. T., Ahmed, A. F., Alzobi, O., Toubasi, A., Salameh, M., Elmhiregh, A., Hameed, S., Ahmed, G. O., Alvand, A., & Al Dosari, M. A. A. (2021). Mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery &Traumatology: Orthopedie Traumatologie. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-02999-x
  17. ↵
    Hao, D., & Wang, J. (2021). Fixed-bearing vs mobile-bearing prostheses for total knee arthroplasty after approximately 10 years of follow-up: a meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 16(1), 437.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    Heo, S. M., Harris, I., Naylor, J., & Lewin, A. M. (2020). Complications to 6 months following total hip or knee arthroplasty: observations from an Australian clinical outcomes registry. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 21(1), 602.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M. F., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011). Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 20(10), 1727–1736.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    Hofstede, S. N., Nouta, K. A., Jacobs, W., van Hooff, M. L., Wymenga, A. B., Pijls, B. G., Nelissen, R. G. H. H., & Marang-van de Mheen, P. J. (2015). Mobile bearing vs fixed bearing prostheses for posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty for postoperative functional status in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2, CD003130.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Jiang, C., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Bian, Y., Feng, B., & Weng, X. (2016). Posterior Cruciate Ligament Retention versus Posterior Stabilization for Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis. PloS One, 11(1), e0147865.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    Jonas, S. C., Argyropoulos, M., Al-Hadithy, N., Korycki, M., Lotz, B., Deo, S. D., & Satish, V. (2015). Knee arthroplasty with a medial rotating total knee replacement. Midterm clinical findings: a district general experience of 38 cases. The Knee, 22(2), 122–125.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Kalisvaart, M. M., Pagnano, M. W., Trousdale, R. T., Stuart, M. J., & Hanssen, A. D. (2012). Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: no clinically detectable differences at five years. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume, 94(6), 481–489.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. P. J. Lavrakas
    Kasim, R. M. (2008). Interaction Effect. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
  25. ↵
    Keurentjes, J. C., Van Tol, F. R., Fiocco, M., So-Osman, C., Onstenk, R., Koopman-Van Gemert, A. W. M. M., Pöll, R. G., & Nelissen, R. G. H. H. (2014). Patient acceptable symptom states after total hip or knee replacement at mid-term follow-up: Thresholds of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Bone &Joint Research, 3(1), 7–13.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    Killen, C. J., Murphy, M. P., Hopkinson, W. J., Harrington, M. A., Adams, W. H., & Rees, H. W. (2020). Minimum twelve-year follow-up of fixedvs mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: Double blinded randomized trial. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, 11(1), 154–159.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Klein, D. (2011). MISUM: Stata module to calculate summary statistics in MI dataset. Boston College Department of Economics. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s457259
  28. ↵
    Koh, Y.-G., Nam, J.-H., Chung, H.-S., Kim, H.-J., Lee, H.-Y., & Kang, K.-T. (2020). Gender differences exist in rotational anatomy of the distal femur in osteoarthritic knees using MRI. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: Official Journal of the ESSKA, 28(9), 2990–2997.
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    Kulkarni, R., Mathew, M., Vatti, L., Rezaei, A., Tiwari, A., Bashyal, R. K., & Bagaria, V. (2023). What Are Culturally Relevant Activities of Daily Living in the Asian-Indian Population? A Survey of 402 Patients With Knee Pain. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000002529
  30. ↵
    Lee, S. H., Kim, D. H., & Lee, Y. S. (2020). Is there an optimal age for total knee arthroplasty?: A systematic review. Knee Surgery &Related Research, 32(1), 60.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    Longo, U. G., Ciuffreda, M., Mannering, N., D’Andrea, V., Locher, J., Salvatore, G., & Denaro, V. (2017). Outcomes of Posterior-Stabilized Compared with Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Knee Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1603902
  32. ↵
    Moskal, J. T., & Capps, S. G. (2014). Rotating-platform TKA no different from fixed-bearing TKA regarding survivorship or performance: a meta-analysis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 472(7), 2185–2193.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Polascik, B. A., Hidaka, C., Thompson, M. C., Tong-Ngork, S., Wagner, J. L., Plummer, O., & Lyman, S. (2020). Crosswalks Between Knee and Hip Arthroplasty Short Forms: HOOS/KOOS JR and Oxford. JBJS, 102(11), 983.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    Powell, A. J., Crua, E., Chong, B. C., Gordon, R., McAuslan, A., Pitto, R. P., & Clatworthy, M. G. (2018). A randomized prospective study comparing mobile-bearing against fixed-bearing PFC Sigma cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasties with ten-year minimum follow-up. The Bone &Joint Journal, 100-B(10), 1336–1344.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    Schmitz, R. J., Ficklin, T. K., Shimokochi, Y., Nguyen, A.-D., Beynnon, B. D., Perrin, D. H., & Shultz, S. J. (2008). Varus/valgus and internal/external torsional knee joint stiffness differs between sexes. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 36(7), 1380–1388.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  36. ↵
    Scholes, C., Ebrahimi, M., Ektas, N., & Ireland, J. (2019). Efficacy of a Second-Generation Rotating Bearing Tibial Platform in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study with Registry Analysis. The Journal of Knee Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1678679
  37. ↵
    Siljander, M. P., McQuivey, K. S., Fahs, A. M., Galasso, L. A., Serdahely, K. J., & Karadsheh, M. S. (2018). Current Trends in Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Study of Four Major Orthopedic Journals. The Journal of Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.034
  38. ↵
    Sohn, S., Koh, I. J., Kim, M. S., Choi, K. Y., Lim, D. S., & In, Y. (2023). Mobile-Bearing has no Benefit Over Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty in Joint Awareness and Crepitus: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 38(1), 78–84.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    Sterne, J. A. C., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., Wood, A. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2009). Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ, 338, b2393.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Townsend, L. A., Roubion, R. C., Bourgeois, D. M., Leonardi, C., Fox, R. S., Dasa, V., & Pollock, G. R. (2018). Impact of Age on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Knee Surgery, 31(6), 580–584.
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    Vanlommel, L., Vanlommel, J., Claes, S., & Bellemans, J. (2013). Slight undercorrection following total knee arthroplasty results in superior clinical outcomes in varus knees. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: Official Journal of the ESSKA, 21(10), 2325–2330.
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & STROBE Initiative. (2007). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Medicine, 4(10), e296.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    Whitehouse, S. L., Blom, A. W., Taylor, A. H., Pattison, G. T. R., & Bannister, G. C. (2005). The Oxford Knee Score; problems and pitfalls. The Knee, 12(4), 287–291.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  44. ↵
    Wieczorek, M., Rotonda, C., Guillemin, F., & Rat, A.-C. (2020). What Have We Learned About the Course of Clinical Outcomes After Total Knee or Hip Arthroplasty? Arthritis Care &Research, 72(11), 1519–1529.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    Williams, D. P., Price, A. J., Beard, D. J., Hadfield, S. G., Arden, N. K., Murray, D. W., & Field, R. E. (2013). The effects of age on patient-reported outcome measures in total knee replacements. The Bone &Joint Journal, 95-B(1), 38–44.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Posted May 16, 2023.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
Effects of age and sex on patient-reported outcomes following total knee arthroplasty with a rotating bearing tibial platform design: A single-surgeon practice registry study
Manaal Fatima, Corey Scholes, John Ireland
medRxiv 2023.05.15.23289477; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.15.23289477
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area