Robust Randomized Controlled Data Is Lacking in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Abstract

Introduction Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)are regarded as highest level of scientific evidence. There is belief that while prospective randomized control trials (PRCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating efficacy of interventions, there are very few conducted on lower extremity joint arthroplasty. However, there was a more than adequate amount (n=197) of published RCTs in knee arthroplasty during the 2021 calendar year. Therefore, we studied RCTs on knee arthroplasties for 2021 and assessed them for overall study topic reasons (i.e., devices as well as prostheses, rehabilitation, pain control, blood loss [tranexamic acid], and other), which were then subcategorized by: (1) country of origin; (2) sample size; and (3)whether or not they were follow-up studies. After this, we specifically focused on the studies (n=26) concerning devices or prostheses.

Methods A search of PubMed on “knee arthroplasty” specifying “RCT” using their search function and dates between January 1, 2021 to December 24, 2021 resulted in the analyzed reports. A total of 17.3% reports analyzed rehabilitation methods while 28.4% studied pain control. A total of 20.3% examined blood loss topics and 20.8% investigated other topics.

Results We found that 26 studies (13.2%) involved prosthetic design and implantation. Overall, only 15% knee arthroplasty RCTs were conducted in the United States, the mean total final sample size was 133±146 patients, and 7% were follow-up studies. None of the prostheses studies were performed in the United States, and the mean total final sample size of all of these studies was 86±54 patients, and 23% were follow-up studies. Total knee arthroplasty prospective RCTs were not performed in the United States.

Conclusion The authors believe that other study designs, such as database or registry analyses, are also appropriate in this rapidly advancing field of joint arthroplasty for the continuing evaluation and approval of new prostheses and techniques, while we await more PRCTs in our field.

Keywords

randomized controlled trial - orthopaedic - joint - knee - arthroplasty

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 03. August 2022

Angenommen: 15. September 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. November 2022

• References

• 1 Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (01) 305-310
• 2 Merlino JI, Malangoni MA, Smith CM, Lange RL. Prospective randomized trials affect the outcomes of intraabdominal infection. Ann Surg 2001; Jun; 233 (06) 859-866
• 3 Piantadosi S. Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Perspective. 3rd ed.. Wiley; 1997
• 4 Friedman LM, Furberg CD, Demets DL. Fundamentals of clinical trials. BioMed Eng Online 2004; 3 (01) 1-2
• 5 Matar HE, Platt SR. Overview of randomised controlled trials in orthopaedic research: search for significant findings. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29 (06) 1163-1168
• 6 Leopold SS, Swiontkowski M, Haddad F. Editorial: JBJS, the bone & joint journal, and clinical orthopaedics and related research require prospective registration of randomized clinical trials-why is this important?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (01) 1-3
• 7 Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003; 289 (04) 454-465
• 8 Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, Leopold SS. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170 (21) 1934-1939
• 9 Lièvre M, Ménard J, Bruckert E. et al. Premature discontinuation of clinical trial for reasons not related to efficacy, safety, or feasibility. BMJ 2001; 322 (7286): 603-605
• 10 Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979; 86 (03) 638-641
• 11 Blyth MJG, Banger MS, Doonan J, Jones BG, MacLean AD, Rowe PJ. Early outcomes after robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B (10) 1561-1570
• 12 Clark AN, Hounat A, O'Donnell S. et al. Electromagnetic navigated versus conventional total knee arthroplasty-a five-year follow-up of a single-blind randomized control trial. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (10) 3451-3455
• 13 Tsubosaka M, Kamenaga T, Kuroda Y. et al. Accelerometer-based portable navigation system is useful for tibial bone cutting in modified kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (08) 870-876
• 14 Kim JK, Park IW, Ro DH, Mun BS, Han HS, Lee MC. Is a titanium implant for total knee arthroplasty better? A randomized controlled study. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (04) 1302-1309
• 15 Kim MS, Koh IJ, Kim CK, Choi KY, Jeon JH, In Y. Comparison of joint perception between posterior-stabilized and ultracongruent total knee arthroplasty in the same patient. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103 (01) 44-52
• 16 Kim YH, Park JW, Jang YS. Long-term (up to 27 years) prospective, randomized study of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties in patients <60 years of age with osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (04) 1330-1335
• 17 Yuan M, Shi X, Su Q, Wan X, Zhou Z. A prospective randomized controlled trial on the short-term effectiveness of domestic robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 2021; 35 (10) 1251-1258
• 18 Gan Y, Zhuang J, Jiang W, Sun W, Zhang Y. Application of personalized navigation templates to Oxford single condylar replacement in a Chinese population. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (11) 1155-1161
• 19 Koster LA, Meinardi JE, Kaptein BL, Van der Linden-Van der Zwaag E, Nelissen RGHH. Two-year RSA migration results of symmetrical and asymmetrical tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B [phone]
• 20 Louwerens JKG, Hockers N, Achten G, Sierevelt IN, Nolte PA, van Hove RP. No clinical difference between TiN-coated versus uncoated cementless CoCrMo mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty; 10-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (03) 750-756
• 21 Lynch JT, Perriman DM, Scarvell JM. et al. The influence of total knee arthroplasty design on kneeling kinematics: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B [phone]
• 22 Hauer G, Hörlesberger N, Klim S. et al. Mid-term results show no significant difference in postoperative clinical outcome, pain and range of motion between a well-established total knee arthroplasty design and its successor: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (03) 827-831
• 23 Banger M, Doonan J, Rowe P, Jones B, MacLean A, Blyth MJB. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: five-year clinical outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B [phone]
• 24 Wood TJ, Winemaker MJ, Williams DS, Petruccelli DT, Tushinski DM, de Beer JV. Randomized controlled trial of sensor-guided knee balancing compared to standard balancing technique in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (03) 953-957
• 25 Dyreborg K, Winther N, Lind T, Flivik G, Mørk Petersen M. Evaluation of different coatings of the tibial tray in uncemented total knee arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial with 5 years follow-up with RSA and DEXA. Knee 2021; 29: 208-215
• 26 Beyer F, Pape A, Lützner C, Kirschner S, Lützner J. Similar outcomes in computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty: ten-year results of a prospective randomized study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22 (01) 707
• 27 Batra S, Malhotra R, Kumar V, Srivastava DN, Backstein D, Pandit H. Superior patient satisfaction in medial pivot as compared to posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (11) 3633-3640
• 28 Moorthy V, Lai MC, Liow MHL. et al. Similar postoperative outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with measured resection and gap balancing techniques using a contemporary knee system: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (10) 3178-3185
• 29 Akti S, Karakus D, Sezgin EA, Cankaya D. No differences in clinical outcomes or isokinetic performance between cruciate-substituting ultra-congruent and posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasties: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29 (10) 3443-3449
• 30 Komaris DS, Govind C, Murphy AJ. et al. Implant design affects walking and stair navigation after total knee arthroplasty: a double-blinded randomised controlled trial. J Orthop Surg Res 2021; 16 (01) 177
• 31 Chang JS, Kayani B, Moriarty PD, Tahmassebi JE, Haddad FS. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing medial-pivot versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (05) 1584-1589.e1
• 32 Campi S, Kendrick BJL, Kaptein BL. et al. Five-year results of a randomised controlled trial comparing cemented and cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement using radiostereometric analysis. Knee 2021; 28: 383-390
• 33 Kayani B, Tahmassebi J, Ayuob A, Konan S, Oussedik S, Haddad FS. A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B [phone]
• 34 Saiki Y, Ojima T, Kabata T, Hayashi S, Tsuchiya H. Accuracy of different navigation systems for femoral and tibial implantation in total knee arthroplasty: a randomised comparative study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2021; 141 (12) 2267-2276
• 35 Tsuda K, Shibuya T, Okamoto N. et al. Can accuracy with the iASSIST navigation be confirmed by assessment? A multi-center prospective randomized controlled trial with independent three-dimensional image assessment. Knee 2021; 30: 344-352
• 36 Mochizuki T, Yano K, Ikari K, Okazaki K. Difference in patient-reported outcomes of various patellar component designs in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical study. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2021; 29 (01) 2309499021996068
• 37 Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. et al; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134 (08) 663-694
• 38 Evidence-Based Medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA 1992; 268 (17) 2420-2425
• 39 Sung J, Siegel J, Tornetta P, Bhandari M. The orthopaedic trauma literature: an evaluation of statistically significant findings in orthopaedic trauma randomized trials. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9: 14
• 40 Argent R, Slevin P, Bevilacqua A, Neligan M, Daly A, Caulfield B. Clinician perceptions of a prototype wearable exercise biofeedback system for orthopaedic rehabilitation: a qualitative exploration. BMJ Open 2018; 8 (10) e026326
• 41 Patterson JT, Wu HH, Chung CC, Bendich I, Barry JJ, Bini SA. Wearable activity sensors and early pain after total joint arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 2020; 6 (01) 68-70
• 42 Ramkumar PN, Haeberle HS, Ramanathan D. et al. Remote patient monitoring using mobile health for total knee arthroplasty: validation of a wearable and machine learning-based surveillance platform. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (10) 2253-2259
• 43 Ramkumar PN, Muschler GF, Spindler KP, Harris JD, McCulloch PC, Mont MA. Open mHealth architecture: a primer for tomorrow's orthopedic surgeon and introduction to its use in lower extremity arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (04) 1058-1062
• 44 Ramkumar PN, Haeberle HS, Navarro SM. et al. Mobile technology and telemedicine for shoulder range of motion: validation of a motion-based machine-learning software development kit. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2018; 27 (07) 1198-1204
• 45 Chughtai M, Kelly JJ, Newman JM. et al. The role of virtual rehabilitation in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2019; 32 (01) 105-110
• 46 Chughtai M, Shah NV, Sultan AA. et al. The role of prehabilitation with a telerehabilitation system prior to total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2019; 7 (04) 68
• 47 Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Harwood J, Ong KL, Bozic KJ, Callaghan JJ. Database and registry research in orthopaedic surgery: part i: claims-based data. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (15) 1278-1287
• 48 Hodkinson A, Kirkham JJ, Tudur-Smith C, Gamble C. Reporting of harms data in RCTs: a systematic review of empirical assessments against the CONSORT harms extension. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (09) e003436
• 49 Golder S, Loke YK, Wright K, Norman G. Reporting of adverse events in published and unpublished studies of health care interventions: a systematic review. PLoS Med 2016; Sep 20; 13 (09) e1002127
• 50 Chess LE, Gagnier J. Risk of bias of randomized controlled trials published in orthopaedic journals. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 76
• 51 Fayaz HC, Haas N, Kellam J. et al. Improvement of research quality in the fields of orthopaedics and trauma: a global perspective. Int Orthop 2013; 37 (07) 1205-1212
• 52 Faraoni D, Schaefer ST. Randomized controlled trials vs. observational studies: why not just live together?. BMC Anesthesiol 2016; 16 (01) 102