Register for the Forum

  • After registration you will receive an email to verify your email address. Once confirmed, your account will need activation by an administrator. Once activated you will receive an email to confirm.

Forum Rules

In addition to the terms of use (below) the following rules apply

  • Discussion and post of any product off-label usage is prohibited.
  • Prior to uploading any medical images or other patient personal data, the users must ensure they have obtained the necessary permissions or consent to share these images in the Forum without restrictions and any personal data identifying features have been removed or blurred.
  • Misleading or factually untrue statements or posts about products or discussed cases are prohibited.
  • Any obscene, vulgar, discriminating or abusive language in your post or comments is prohibited.
  • When discussing cases, to avoid misunderstandings, refrain from using misleading, ironic or humorous comments.

Best practice

  • To make case discussions meaningful to other Members, please provide relevant background information on patients or cases using anonymized patient data.
  • Please check whether a topic / question is already being discussed before starting a new thread.
  • Allow email notifications to receive updates on discussions you are participating in.

Click here for the terms of use

Facts & Figures

Are more anatomic components the key to more satisfied TKR patients?


Promising early outcomes for a personalized knee system suggest they might be1.


At two year follow-up patients treated with an anatomic knee system reported higher KOOS symptom (p = 0.037) and KOOS QOL scores (p < 0.001) than patients with the NexGen® Knee System. All other PROMs outcomes were similar1.

The authors stated that “the KOOS symptom and QOL sub-scores are the most appropriate gauge of how well an artificial knee replicates the feel of a native knee”; and that “the increased sizing options (in the anatomic group) yield accurate intraoperative component placement, which in turn yields more favourable PROM scores1.”

Based on these data, the authors suggested there may be “the potential to improve subjective PROMs and decrease the number of unsatisfied TKA patients by making TKA devices more anatomic and increasing the intraoperative sizing options1.”

This was a single-centre study of a consecutive series of 129 anatomic knees, implanted between December 2012 and December 2013. 1 Pre-operative, 1 year, and 2 year radiographs and PROMs were evaluated. “The study data were gathered from an institutional level IV register1.” The 2 years PROMs were compared to a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort of patients that had received a NexGen Knee1.

The authors concluded that the personalized knee system “demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes, similar or better than the NexGen Knee System, at early follow-up1.”

  1. Galea, V. P., et al. Promising early outcomes of a novel anatomic knee system. KSSTA. 2018; 27: 1067–1074: Find the source here.

Email a Colleague

  • An email will be sent to your colleague with a link to the forum.

Want to Comment?

Join the discussion in the forum

Visit our forum

You have Successfully Subscribed!