The impact of severity of patellofemoral osteoarthritis on the patient-reported outcomes of total knee arthroplasty with patellar retention: A retrospective comparative study

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of preoperative patellofemoral osteoarthritis severity on the final patient-reported outcomes in patients with primary osteoarthritis who underwent total knee arthroplasty with patellar retention. Methods: In this retrospective study, 167 patients (42 males, 125 females; mean age: 67.9 (range, 50-82) years), who underwent total knee arthroplasty with patellar retention due to primary osteoarthritis were included. The preoperative severity of patellofemoral osteoarthritis was classified according to the Iwano classification system. All the patients were then divided into two groups based on the severity of patellofemoral osteoarthritis: Group I, 73 patients (17 males, 56 females; mean age: 68.4 (range, 50-80) years) with mild osteoarthritis (stage 0-I) and group II, 94 patients (25 males, 69 females; mean age: 67.7 (range, 54-82) years) with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (stage II to IV). The mean follow-up was 42.8 (range, 24-59) months in group I and 41.7 (range, 24-63) months in group II. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oxford Knee Score, the New Knee Society Score-function score, and the Kujala score preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Also, the Forgotten Joint Score was performed at the final follow-up. Results: The Oxford Knee Score improved from 22.5 (range, 18-26) preoperatively to 36.5 (range, 30-43) for Group I and from 21.9 (range, 16-25) preoperatively to 35.9 (range, 29-43) for Group II (P < 0.001). The Kujala score increased from 51.2 (range, 45- 65) preoperatively to 79.3 (range, 71-88) for Group I and from 50.3 (range, 42-60) preoperatively to 80.2 (range, 71-86) for Group II (P < 0.001). The New Knee Society Score-function score raised from 60.2 (range, 50-72) preoperatively to 82.2 (range, 72- 90) for Group I and from 59.5 (range, 48-69) preoperatively to 81.4 (range, 73-90) for Group II (P < 0.001). The Forgotten Joint Score was 69.9 (range, 63-76) in Group I and 70.2 (range, 62-77) in Group II (P = 0.49). Conclusion: Evidence from this study has shown that the preoperative severity of patellofemoral osteoarthritis has no significant impact on the final patient-reported outcomes of patients with primary osteoarthritis after patellar retention total knee arthroplasty.

PDF

___

1. Waters TS, Bentley G. Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(2):212-217. 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00005
2. Schiavone Panni A, Cerciello S, Del Regno C, Felici A, Vasso M. Patellar resurfacing complications in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2014;38 (2):313-317. 10.1007/s00264-013-2244-3
3. Patel K, Raut V. Patella in total knee arthroplasty: To resurface or not to—A cohort study of staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2011;35 (3):349-353. 10.1007/s00264-010-1063-z
4. Kaseb MH, Tahmasebi MN, Mortazavi SMJ, Sobhan MR, Nabian MH. Com- parison of clinical results between patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: A short term evaluation. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2018;6 (2):124-129.
5. Burnett RSJ, Boone JL, Rosenzweig SD, Steger-May K, Barrack RL. Patellar resurfacing compared with nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(11):2562-2567. 10.2106/JBJS.H.00109
6. Chun KC, Lee SH, Baik JS, Kook SH, Han JK, Chun CH. Clinical and radiolo- gical results of cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty with the NexGen ® -CR system: Comparison of patellar resurfacing versus retention with more than 14 years of follow-up. J Orthopaedic Surg Res. 2017;12(1):631-638. 10.1186/ s13018-017-0646-4
7. Kim BS, Reitman RD, Schai PA, Scott RD. Selective patellar nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: 10 year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:81-88.
8. Eshnazarov KE, Seon JK, Song EK. Comparison of radiological assessments patellar resurfacing with retention for grade IV osteoarthritis in patellofemoral joint accomplished total knee arthroplasty. Vestn Rentgenol Radiol. 2016;97 (1):28-32. 10.20862/0042-4676-2016-97-1-28-32
9. Seo SS, Kim CW, Moon SW. A comparison of patella retention versus resurfa- cing for moderate or severe patellar articular defects in total knee arthro- plasty: Minimum 5-year follow-up results. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2011;23 (3):142-148. 10.5792/ksrr.2011.23.3.142
10. Won-Joon C, Seong-Il B, Jong-Min K, Bum-Sik L, Sohnand D-W, Kwon Y-H. Total knee arthroplasty with patellar retention: The severity of patellofemoral osteoarthritis did not affect the clinical and radiographic outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(7):2136-2140.
11. Hwang BH, Yang IH, Han CD. Comparison of patellar retention versus resurfa- cing in LCS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Trauma- tol Arthrosc. 2012;20(3):524-531. 10.1007/s00167-011-1593-y
12. Janse AJ, Gemke RJ, Uiterwaal CS, et al. Quality of life: Patients and doctors don’t always agree: A meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):653. 10.1016/ j.jclinepi.2003.11.013
13. Bullens PH, Van Loon CJ, De Waal Malefijt MC, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: A comparison between subjective and objective out- come assessments. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(6):740. 10.1054/arth.2001.23922
14. Iwano T, Kurosawa H, Tokuyama H, et al. Roentgenographic and clinical findings of patellofemoral osteoarthrosis. With special reference to I ts relation- ship to femorotibial osteoarthrosis and etiologic factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;252:190-197.
15. Lin K, Bao L, Wang J, Fujita K, Makimoto K, Liao X. Validation of the Chinese (Mandarin) version of the Oxford Knee Score in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(12):2992-3004. 10.1007/ s11999-017-5495-2
16. Cheung RT, Ngai SP, Lam PL, Chiu JK, Fung EY. Chinese translation and validation of the Kujala scale for patients with patellofemoral pain. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(6):510-513. 10.3109/09638288.2011.610494
17. Liu D, He X, Zheng W, et al. Translation and validation of the simplified Chinese new Knee Society Scoring System. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:391. 10.1186/s12891-015-0854-1
18. Cao S, Liu N, Han W, et al. Simplified Chinese version of the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) for patients who underwent joint arthroplasty: Cross-cultural adapta- tion and validation. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):6. 10.1186/s13018-016-0508-5
19. Dowsey MM, Dieppe P, Lohmander S, Castle D, Liew D, Choong PFM. The association between radiographic severity and pre-operative function in pa- tients undergoing primary knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Knee. 2012;19 (6):860-865. 10.1016/j.knee.2012.02.007
20. Valdes AM, Doherty SA, Zhang W, Muir KR, Maciewicz RA, Doherty M. Inverse relationship between preoperative radiographic severity and post- operative pain in patients with osteoarthritis who have undergone total joint arthroplasty. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2012;41(04):568-575. 10.1016/j.semar thrit.2011.07.002
21. Keurentjes JC, Fiocco M, So-Osman C, et al. Patients with severe radiographic osteoarthritis have a better prognosis in physical functioning after hip and knee replacement: A cohort-study. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e59500. 10.1371/journal. pone.0059500
22. Tilbury C, Holtslag MJ, Tordoir RL, et al. Outcome of total hip arthroplasty, but not of total knee arthroplasty, is related to the preoperative radiographic severity of osteoarthritis. A prospective cohort study of 573 patients. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(01):67-71. 10.3109/17453674.2015.1092369
23. Metsna V, Vorobjov S, Martson A. Prevalence of anterior knee pain among patients following total knee arthroplasty with nonreplaced patella: A retrospective study of 1778 knees. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 2014;50 (2):82-86. 10.1016/j.medici.2014.06.001
24. Ma HM, Lu YC, Kwok TG, Ho FY, Huang CY, Huang CH. The effect of the design of the femoral component on the conformity of the patellofemoral joint in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(3):408-412. 10.1302/ 0301-620X.89B3.18276
25. Pehlivanoglu T, Balci HI, Demirel M, Cakmak MF, Yazicioglu O, Kilicoglu OI. Prevalence of anterior knee pain after patellar retention total knee arthroplasty: Comparison of patients with rheumatoid arthritis versus primary osteoarthritis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019;53(6):420-425. 10.1016/j.aott.2019.07.001
26. Sun YQ, Yang B, Tong SL, Sun J, Zhu YC. Patelloplasty versus traditional total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Orthopedics. 2012;35(3):e343-e348. 10.3928/01477447-20120222-14
27. Župan A, Snoj Ž, Antolič V, Pompe B. Better results with patelloplasty com- pared to traditional total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2014;38(8):1621-1625. 10.1007/s00264-014-2366-2
28. Van Jonbergen HP, Scholtes VA, Poolman RW. A randomised, controlled trial of circumpatellar electrocautery in total knee replacement without patellar resurfacing: A concise follow-up at a mean of 3.7 years. Bone Jt J. 2014;96-B (4):473-478. 10.1302/0301-620X.96B4.32118
29. Cheng T, Zhu C, Guo Y, Shi S, Chen D, Zhang X. Patellar denervation with electrocautery in total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing: A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(11):2648-2654. 10.1007/s00167-013-2533-9
30. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, et al. Development of a new Knee Society Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):20-32. 10.1007/s11999-011- 2152-z
31. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: Validation of a new patient-reported out- come measure. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(3):430.e1436.e1. ):430.e1436.e1. 10. 1016/j.arth.2011.06.035
32. Carlson VR, Post ZD, Orozco FR, Davis DM, Lutz RW, Ong AC. When does the knee feel normal again: A Cross-Sectional study assessing the Forgotten Joint Score in patients after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(3):700- 703. 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.063