Short-Term functional comparison of three total knee arthroplasties-Journey II, Genesis II and Profix.

Abstract

To compare the outcomes of three knee arthroplasty design philosophies and surface tribology.• A zirconium-surfaced, bicruciate-stabilised implant designed to mimic kinematic movement and improve flexion and outcomes;• A cobalt-chrome surfaced, multi-radius design with built-in femoral external rotation to aid balancing and patella tracking through a deeper trochlea groove;• A zirconium-surfaced, single-radius implant designed on surface conformity, particularly within the patello-femoral joint. 313 knee replacements - 103 <i>Journey II,</i> 103 <i>Genesis II</i> and 107 <i>Profix</i> - were statistically assessed at a minimum of 2 years using WOMAC, Oxford and SF-12 scores, and range of movement. There was no difference between the actual or unit change in WOMAC scores (<i>p</i> = 0.140 and <i>p</i> = 0.287), SF-12 physical (<i>p</i> = 0.088) or mental scores (<i>p</i> = 0.975) between the three implants; or between the actual or unit change in Oxford score (<i>p</i> = 0.912 and <i>p</i> = 0.874) for the <i>Journey II</i> or <i>Genesis II</i>. The <i>Journey II</i> produced more flexion and range of movement than the <i>Genesis II</i> (<i>p</i> < 0.001 and <i>p</i> = 0.018) and <i>Profix</i> (<i>p</i> < 0.001 and <0.001) with no difference between the latter two (<i>p</i> = 0.402 and 0.568); with no difference in extension between the three implants (<i>p</i> = 0.086). There was no difference between those with or without a resurfaced patella. The three design philosophies and surfaces yielded no difference in outcome scores at 2 years post-operatively. The <i>Journey II</i> demonstrated better post-operative flexion. Resurfacing the patella did not alter the outcome scores or flexion.