Search

Objective: The patient's knee implant performance (PKIP) is a patient-reported outcome measure, developed in the USA in English that evaluates knee functional performance before and after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The PKIP assesses the level of satisfaction, confidence, and stability, while performing various activities, as well as the need for changing ways of doing activities. It comprises 24 items. The objective of this study was to present the methodology of the linguistic validation of the PKIP., Methods: The Japanese version of the PKIP was developed using a standard linguistic validation (LV) process. The LV involved the following steps: (1) conceptual analysis of the original version; (2) translation into Japanese using a dual forward/backward translation process; (3) review by an orthopaedics surgeon; (4) test on five respondents; and (5) proofreading., Results: The translation itself did not reveal major translatability issues, either cultural, semantic, or syntactic. Most of the activities listed (e.g., going up stairs, getting in/out of a car, and walking up a hill/ramp/incline) were easily translated. Only one activity was culturally sensitive and raised some discussion, i.e., "sitting down on a toilet," since the style of Japanese toilets is different from the western style. Overall, the respondents well understood the questionnaire. However, the expression "how your knee is working with your body" used in the opening sentence was an issue for both the clinician and the respondents. A compromise was found by using a Japanese equivalent of "how your knee functions with your legs.", Conclusion: The rigorous translation process, which involved the collaboration of a minimum of thirteen people (sponsor, four translators, two coordinators (one in Japan and one in Europe), one clinician, and five respondents) enabled the production of a Japanese version of the PKIP conceptually equivalent to the USA English original., Competing Interests: Dr. Minoda executed the Service Agreement with Johnson & Johnson K.K as a medical expert and he supported to development of the Japanese version of the PKIP. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Fumiya Ohmasa et al.)

Introduction: This study evaluated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes for an Existing-TKA versus New-TKA from the same manufacturer., Methods: TKA outcomes for 752 with Existing-TKA versus 1129 subjects with New-TKA were followed through 2 years using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Responders were assessed per Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria. Kaplan-Meier implant survivorship was estimated. Radiographs had an independent radiographic review., Results: Two-year follow-up was 84.6% (636/752) for Existing-TKA and 82.5% (931/1129) for New-TKA. Two-year PROMs mean outcomes for New-TKA versus Existing-TKA at 2 years were: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (ADL: 89.0 versus 86.8, P = 0.005; pain: 88.9 versus 87.1, P = 0.019; symptoms: 84.1 versus 82.2, P = 0.017; Sport/Rec: 63.9 versus 58.8, P = 0.001; and QOL: 77.0 versus 73.5, P = 0.003), Patient's Knee Implant Performance (overall: 76.5 versus 73.5, P = 0.003; confidence: 8.4 versus 8.1, P = 0.004; stability: 8.6 versus 8.3, P = 0.006; satisfaction: 8.3 versus 8.1, P = 0.042; and modifying activities: 6.6 versus 6.4, P = 0.334), Oxford Knee Score (41.9 versus 41.1, P = 0.027), and EQ5D-3L (0.88 versus 0.88, P = 0.737). Two-year responder rates using WOMAC were 93.9% versus 90.6% (P = 0.018) for New-TKA versus Existing-TKA. Independent radiographic review showed that tibial and femoral radiolucencies ≥2 mm were similar (P ≥ 0.05) or favored New-TKA. Implant survivorship was similar between groups (log-rank P = 0.9994)., Discussion: New-TKA versus Existing-TKA demonstrated slightly better PROMs with similar radiographic and implant survivorship outcomes., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: This study provides an example for evaluating learning curve when introducing a new knee system., Methods: Thirty-five investigators across 22 sites prospectively implanted 843 subjects with currently available products (group A). Seventy-seven investigators across 48 sites prospectively implanted 2330 subjects with the ATTUNE Knee System; in which the first 10 subjects for each surgeon were the learning curve cases (group B, N = 611), and the later subjects were designated as group C (N = 1719). Surgical time, rates of intraoperative and early postoperative complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of 1 year were compared., Results: Mean (standard deviation) surgical time was 72.0 (21.6) minutes for group A, 83.0 (24.2) for group B, and 72.1 (24.1) for group C ( P < .001 for group B vs group C; P  = .955 for group C vs group A). Intraoperative, early (<90 day) complication rates, and PROMs were similar for all groups., Conclusions: The new knee system learning curve was characterized by a slightly longer surgical time with no negative impact on complications or PROMs., Level of Evidence: III.