55
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Warwick patellofemoral arthroplasty trial: a randomised clinical trial of total knee arthroplasty versus patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with severe arthritis of the patellofemoral joint

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Severe arthritis of the knee is a disabling condition, with over 50,000 knee replacements performed each year in the UK. Isolated patellofemoral joint arthritis occurs in over 10% of these patients with the treatment options being patellofemoral arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty. Whilst many surgeons believe total knee arthroplasty is the 'gold standard' treatment for severe knee arthritis, patellofemoral arthroplasty has certain potential advantages. Primarily, because this operation allows the patient to keep the majority of their own knee joint; preserving bone-stock and the patients' own ligaments. Patellofemoral arthroplasty has also been recognised as a less 'invasive' operation than primary total knee arthroplasty, facilitating a more rapid recovery. There are currently no published results of randomised clinical trials comparing the two arthroplasty techniques. The primary objective of the current study is to assess whether there is a difference in functional knee scores and quality of life outcome assessments at one year post-operation between patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. The secondary objective is to assess the complication rates for both procedures.

          Methods/design

          Patients who are deemed suitable, by an Orthopaedic Consultant, for patellofemoral arthroplasty and medically fit for surgery are eligible to take part in this trial. The consenting patients will be randomised in a 1:1 allocation to a total knee or patellofemoral arthroplasty. The randomisation sequence will be computer generated and administered by a central independent randomisation service. Following consent, all participants will have their knee function, quality of life and physical activity level assessed through questionnaires. The assigned surgery will then be performed using the preferred technique and implant of the operating surgeon. The first post-operative assessments will take place at six weeks, followed by further assessments at 3, 6 and 12 months. At each assessment time point all complications will be recorded. In addition, community and social care services usage will be collected using a patient questionnaire at 3, 6 & 12 months. The patients will then be sent an annual postal questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask about any problems, knee pain and function following their knee arthroplasty to monitor long-term function and failure rates.

          Discussion

          This trial is expected to deliver results in early 2013.

          Trial Registration

          ISRCTN: ISRCTN34863373

          UKCRN portfolio ID 6847

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Assessing activity in joint replacement patients.

          Outcome evaluations of lower extremity joint reconstructions should include an assessment of patient activity. In vivo wear assessments of total joint prostheses should be based on a measure of use, not time in situ or a proxy such as age or gender; however, clinicians lack a simple method to reliably assess the activity of patients with joint replacement. The modern pedometer can be a satisfactory means of quantifying the use of lower extremity joints. The pedometer, however, requires special effort on the part of the physician or evaluator and the patient. Therefore, we compared the quantitative assessment of walking activity of 100 total joint replacement patients, as measured with a pedometer, to the UCLA activity score and a simple visual analog scale that can easily be employed during a routine office evaluation. Both the UCLA activity rating (P = .002) and the visual analog scale rating of the investigator (P = .00001) had a strong correlation with the average steps per day as recorded by the pedometer. There was, however, up to a 15-fold difference in the average steps per day for individual patients with the same UCLA score. The visual analog scale as rated by the patients of their own activity did not have as strong a correlation with the pedometer data (P = .08) as did patient age (P = .049). For practical reasons, the pedometer is probably best reserved for the evaluation of extreme cases of activity (or inactivity). This study indicates that both the UCLA activity rating and the investigator visual analog scale are valid for routine activity assessment in a clinical setting. Adjustments of the UCLA activity score for the frequency and intensity of activity, as can be done with the investigator visual analog scale, increase the accuracy of the activity rating.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Disability Rating Index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings.

              The purpose of this study was to evaluate an instrument for assessment of physical disability, mainly intended for clinical settings, the Disability Rating Index (DRI). Healthy persons (n = 1092), both white and blue collar workers, and patients (n = 366) with different levels of physical capacity, were assessed. Most of the patients (n = 303) underwent rehabilitation programmes for neck/shoulder/low-back pain but some (n = 47) were arthritis patients waiting for hip or knee replacement surgery, or wheelchair patients with multiple sclerosis (n = 16). The reliability was investigated by test-retest studies, intra- and inter-rater and internal consistency studies. Five construct validity tests were carried out: a discrimination study; a converging validity test; a test for sensitivity to small alterations in health status; and two correlational validity tests. Correlation of the self-reported DRI to the actual performance in similar activities was carried out. Responsiveness was tested by correlation of the DRI before/after replacement surgery for arthritis. The test-retest correlations were 0.83-0.95 in the studies, including correlation of different versions. The intra- and inter-rater reproducibility was 0.98 and 0.99 respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis test in the discrimination study yielded p < 0.0001. More than 90% of the respondents completed the questionnaire correctly. Correlation of the DRI to the Functional Status Questionnaire was 0.46. The responsiveness was excellent, p = 0.0001. The DRI proved to be a robust, practical clinical and research instrument with good responsiveness and acceptability for assessment of disability caused by impairment of common motor functions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central
                1471-2474
                2011
                23 November 2011
                : 12
                : 265
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, United Kingdom
                [2 ]University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, Trauma & Orthopaedic Department, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry, CV2 2DX, United Kingdom
                Article
                1471-2474-12-265
                10.1186/1471-2474-12-265
                3235978
                22111771
                b0d47e16-f32b-49e1-adf5-cdb6b68ce0c0
                Copyright ©2011 Odumenya et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 28 September 2011
                : 23 November 2011
                Categories
                Study Protocol

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article