Facts & Figures

It’s time to get

The quest for the forgotten knee

Although you can generally expect excellent survivorship from most knee replacements, today’s patients are more demanding, and their definition of ‘success’ has changed.

Studies suggest that one in four patients are not fully satisfied with their new knee. Upon review of the literature, many patient complaints stem from the fact that their total knee replacement simply feels different than their healthy knee felt prior to surgery.1,2,3

There is evidence 4, 5, 6 that a more personalized approach to knee care may help improve patient satisfaction, by creating a more natural feeling knee, which is easier for the patient to ‘forget’.

Current strategies to deliver more personalized knee care include:

  • Partial Knee Replacements, which retain more of the native knee4
  • More anatomically accurate prostheses that improve implant fit to patients5
  • Instruments, surgical techniques and alignment philosophies that allow the surgeon to personalize each procedure6
  • Surgery-assisting technologies that make knee replacement more intuitive, precise, and simple, and allow the surgeon to reproducibly deliver on their personalized alignment plans7
  • Care pathways & digital care management platforms that deliver patient-centred care, and help optimise all aspects of a patient’s orthopaedic journey 8, 9

Join us for 2021 at The Home of Personalized Knee Care, as we ‘quest’ for the forgotten knee, and the solutions and best practices to help optimise patient satisfaction.

  1. Bourne, R. et al. “Patient Satisfaction After Total Knee Arthroplasty: Who Is Satisfied and Who Is Not?” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 468: 57–63, 2010. Find the source here.
  2. Baker, P. et al. “The Role of Pain and Function in Determining Patient Satisfaction After Total Knee Replacement.” National Registry for England and Wales in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British). 89-B: 893–900, 2007. Find the source here.
  3. Pre-Surgical & Post-Surgical Patient Insights & Needs PPTX. Market Strategies International. March 30, 2009.
  4. Peersman G, Verhaegen J, Favier B. The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Int Orthop. 2019 Dec;43(12):2739-2745. doi: 10.1007/s00264-019-04342-w. Epub 2019 May 21. PMID: 31115598. Find the source here.
  5. Bizzozero, P., et al. Morphometric Tibial Implant Decreases Posterior Overhang Rate and Improves Clinical Outcomes: Results of a Prospective, Matched Controlled Study. The Journal of Arthroplasty 33 (2018) 2804e2809. Find the source here.
  6. Rivière C, Iranpour F, Auvinet E, Howell S, Vendittoli PA, Cobb J, Parratte S. Alignment options for total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017 Nov;103(7):1047-1056. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.010. Epub 2017 Aug 31. PMID: 28864235. Find the source here.
  7. Shatrov and Parker. Computer and robotic – assisted total knee arthroplasty: a review of outcomes. Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics (2020) 7:70. Find the source here.
  8. Den Hartog A et al. Pathway-controlled fast-track rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective clinical study evaluating the recovery pattern, drug consumption, and length of stay. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012;132:1153–1163. Find the source here.
  9. Kasteren et al. Total Knee Replacement and the Effect of Technology on Co-creation for Improved Outcomes and Delivery: Qualitative Multi-Stakeholder Study. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Mar; 20(3): e95. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7541. Find the source here.

Email a Colleague

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