Skip to main content
Download PDF

Learning curve of Persona Partial Knee (PPK) arthroplasty: a clinical trial

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 128 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures are considered to be more technically demanding than conventional total knee arthroplasty (TKA), requiring a longer learning curve and more expert surgical skills. Despite some clear advantages of UKA over TKA (such as lesser blood loss, greater bone stock, greater knee performances, etc.), UKA evidenced a greater rate of revision.

Object

This study investigated the learning curve of Persona Partial Knee (PPK) arthroplasty for primary medial UKA performed by a single, non-designer surgeon. PPK is a fixed-bearing, compartment-specific implant. The primary outcome of interest for this study was to evaluate the learning curve of the surgical duration. The secondary outcome of interest was to evaluate the learning curve of radiological implant positioning.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary medial UKA using PPK (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw IN, USA) were prospectively enrolled for the study. All surgeries were performed by a single, non-designer surgeon experienced in knee and hip arthroplasty. The primary outcome of interest was to evaluate the surgical duration. The secondary outcome of interest was to evaluate the implant positioning. The learning curve was estimated using an appropriate nonlinear polynomial regression model with a lower Akaike Information Criterion (AIC).

Results

One hundred twenty five patients were enrolled in the study. 59% of them (74 of 125 patients) were women. The patients’ mean age at the time of surgery was 70.1 ± 9.5 years and their mean body mass index (BMI) was 27.8 ± 4.2 kg/m2. Curve stabilisation of the surgical time was at the 94th patient, of the tibial angle at the 47th patient, of the tibial slope at the 54th patient, of the anterior protrusion at the 29th patient, and of the posterior protrusion at the 51st patient.

Conclusions

The learning curve for component positioning was achieved in approximately 50 cases. The curve of the surgical time achieved a plateau at 94 Persona Partial Knee. Additionally, the factors directly correlated with earlier stabilization of the learning curve in terms of component positioning were: male gender, younger age, right side, and larger components.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The upgrade to newly introduced techniques or technology in knee arthroplasty is often challenging, even for experienced surgeons [1]. When considering progression to a new system, surgeons have to undergo a learning curve [2]. The surgical learning curve relates to the improvement of surgical skills and reproducibility of results over time and/or with increasing experience related to a specific surgical technique or technology [3,4,5]. The surgical learning curve is highly variable between techniques and is strongly related to several individual and institutional factors, including surgeon expertise, surgical team, caseload volume, patient turnover, and type of institution [2]. The duration, magnitude, and variability of the learning curve also have relevance in the surgical outcome [3,4,5]. For example, shorter surgical durations are associated with a lower risk of infections, shorter anaesthesia, lesser stress for the patient’s body, and cost-effectiveness [2, 6].

During the past few decades, there has been a significant development in the field of knee arthroplasty, and several types of implants, instruments, and surgical techniques have been introduced [7]. Knee arthroplasty provides satisfactory results with a low rate of complications, which has made it one of the most performed orthopaedic surgical procedures worldwide [8, 9]. Although both total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and monocompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are based on similar principles, UKA procedures generally require a longer learning curve and stronger surgical skills, as they are more technically challenging than conventional TKA [10,11,12]. Further, despite having some clear advantages over TKA (such as lesser blood loss, greater bone stock, greater knee performances, etc.), UKA evidenced a greater rate of revision [13,14,15].

UKA is typically less invasive than TKA, sparing damage to soft tissues and preserving more bone stock [16, 17]. There is a growing consensus among surgeons that UKA is associated with better clinical and functional performances than TKA [16, 17]. Moreover, UKA is associated with lower blood loss, shorter surgical duration, and a shorter period of hospitalization. UKA also allows a quicker return to high-level sports when compared to TKA [16, 17]. However, one major downside of UKA is that it is associated with reduced implant survivorship when compared to TKA.

Nevertheless, most of the early failures of UKA are related to technical pitfalls. UKA has special instrumentation and a longer learning curve when compared to TKA [18, 19]. Therefore, many surgeons remain reluctant to adopt UKA as their new arthroplasty system.

Few studies investigated the learning curve of single-compartment arthroplasty. However, they have used different evaluation criteria and have therefore reported different learning curves [3, 11, 20]. Our study investigated the radiological positioning of each component, in connection to surgical times and complications. This study investigated the learning curve of Persona Partial Knee (PPK) arthroplasty for primary medial UKA performed by a single, non-designer surgeon. PPK is a fixed-bearing, compartment-specific implant. The primary outcome of interest for this study was to evaluate the learning curve of the surgical duration. The secondary outcome of interest was to evaluate the learning curve of radiological implant positioning. It was hypothesised that less than a hundred procedures should be required to overcome the learning curve.

Materials and Methods

Study protocol

In this study, all the procedures involving human participants were performed in compliance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Milan, Italy (CE 236/2017). The study was conducted by following the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: the STROBE checklist [21]. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants. Patients who underwent primary UKA using PPK (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw IN, USA) were prospectively enrolled in the study between January 2018 and June 2021. All procedures were performed by a single, non-designer surgeon experienced in knee and hip arthroplasty, blinded to the purpose of the study.

Eligibility criteria

The inclusion criteria were: (1) end-stage isolated knee osteoarthrosis of the medial compartment, (2) avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle, (3) varus or valgus deformity < 3°, (4) range of motion (ROM) > 100°, (5) less than 10° of extension contracture, (6) ligaments integrity, (7) minimum follow-up of 12 months; (8) Body Mass Index (BMI) < 30 kg/m2. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was conducted preoperatively to confirm the integrity of cruciate and collateral ligaments in all patients (this procedure is routinely performed before the UKA implant). The exclusion criteria were: (1) previous knee surgery (except arthroscopy for meniscectomy), (2) implant failure during follow-up.

Surgical technique

All patients were operated on under spinal anesthesia in a supine position, by a single, non-designer surgeon experienced in knee and hip arthroplasty. No tourniquet was used. A standard mini-medial parapatellar approach was used for all patients. A routine inspection of the patellofemoral and lateral compartments was conducted. The integrity of the cruciate ligament was evaluated. The medial and intercondylar osteophytes were removed. An anterior tibial pre-cut was performed to allow articular exposure. The PPK system (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) was implanted using the corresponding instrumentation, extramedullary tibial guide, and the femoral and tibial cutting guides by following manufacturer instructions [22]. All the components were cemented using Refobacin® Bone Cement R (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA). One closed suction subcutaneous drain was used and removed on the first postoperative day. The postoperative rehabilitation protocol was identical for all patients and followed published guidelines [23].

Outcomes of interest

The primary outcome of interest was to evaluate the surgical duration. Surgical duration is the time from skin incision to wound suture. The secondary outcome of interest was to evaluate the implant positioning. Implant positioning was assessed independently by two joint replacement specialists who were not involved in the clinical management of the patients. The radiologic measurements were performed twice, at an interval of four to six weeks.

The implant positioning was evaluated using the following parameters at radiographs [24,25,26] (Figs. 1 and 2):

  • Femoral component varus/valgus: Angle between the femoral component and the femoral axis in the coronal plane. An angle of 7° was considered neutral with a tolerance range of ± 10°

  • Tibial component varus/valgus: Angle between the tibial axis and a line drawn along the tibial tray in the coronal plane. The range of tolerance was ± 5°

  • Anteroposterior slope: Angle between a line drawn along the tibial tray and perpendicular to the tibial axis in the lateral view. A slope of 7° was considered optimal with a tolerance range of ± 5° (2° to 12°)

  • Cortex perforation due to tibial peg position

  • Tibial spine integrity

  • Medial tibial component protrusion

  • Anterior tibial component protrusion

  • Posterior tibial component protrusion

Fig. 1
figure 1

Antero-posterior radiograph, right knee; Radiological parameters measured: femoral varus/valgus angle (A); tibial varus/valgus angle (B)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Lateral radiograph, right knee; Radiological parameters measured: anteroposterior tibial slope (C)

Full size image

Radiological data was extracted from Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) to Picture Archiving and Communications System (PACS) and collected in OsiriX® imaging software (version 4.1.2 32-bit) [27].

Statistical analysis

The sociodemographic, clinical, and surgical characteristics of the samples were described using absolute frequencies and percentages for binary data and mean and standard deviations for continuous data. To evaluate the association between the cumulative volume of cases and variables, Spearman or Pearson correlation coefficients were estimated and tested. To assess the learning curve of implant positioning and surgical duration, a moving average with subgroups of 20 consecutive patients was calculated. The learning curve was estimated using the appropriate nonlinear polynomial regression model with a lower Akaike information criterion (AIC) and a statistically significant reduction in the residual sum of squares compared to models with a different degree. Lower AIC means that a model should have improved prediction. Frequently adding more variables decreases predictive accuracy, and the model with a higher R2 will express higher (worse) AIC. To evaluate the presence of a significant trend, a Mann–Kendall test was performed for each variable. Further, to identify the point at which the learning curve stabilized, piecewise linear regression with iterative breakpoint estimation was performed using the local maximum or minimum of the nonlinear polynomial regression as the initial breakpoint. To assess whether the learning curves were influenced by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics (such as sex, age, BMI, surgical side, tibial size, femoral size, and dichotomizing continuous variables at their average), a t-test was conducted by adding the aforementioned variables to the previously estimated models. Then, a subgroup analysis was conducted to study this learning curve within patient subgroups with similar sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Results

Patient recruitment

A total of 137 patients were initially screened. Of them, 12 were not eligible, owing to previous high tibial osteotomy (N = 7) and previous femoral/tibial fracture (N = 5). After removing these patients, 125 patients were enrolled in the study. No patients were lost during follow-up (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

STROBE diagram of patient recruitment

Full size image

Demographic and surgical data

Notably, 59% of the patients (74 of 125 patients) were women. The patients’ mean age at the time of surgery was 70.1 ± 9.5 years and their mean BMI was 27.8 ± 4.2 kg/m2. Demographic data is presented in greater detail in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographics of patients included in the study
Full size table

BMI Body mass index

Overall learning curve

Stabilization was achieved for the surgical time at the 94th patient, for the tibial angle at the 47th patient, for the tibial slope at the 54th patient, for the anterior protrusion at the 29th patient, and for the posterior protrusion at the 51st patient. These results are shown in greater detail in Table 2.

Table 2 Overall Learning Curve
Full size table

Learning curve by gender

In male patients, we noted an earlier stabilization of the tibial angle and tibial slope when compared to the female patients (18th versus 25th and 21st versus 33rd). These results are shown in greater detail in Appendix Table S1.

Learning curve by age

In younger patients (< 70 years), we found an earlier stabilization of the curves for tibial angle and tibial slope when compared to older patients (≥ 70 years) (18th versus 24th and 18th versus 36th). These results are shown in greater detail in Appendix Table S2.

Learning Curve by BMI

Patients with BMI < 27 showed an earlier stabilization in the tibial angle (18th versus 24th) but a similar stabilization in the tibial slope (26th versus 25th). These results are shown in greater detail in Appendix Table S3.

Learning curve by side

Right side knee showed an earlier stabilization with regards to tibial angle (13th versus 27th) and tibial slope (23rd versus 33rd). These results are shown in greater detail in Appendix Table S4.

Learning curve by tibial size

Small tibial size showed a later stabilization when compared to big tibial size concerning the tibial slope (33rd versus 17th). These results are shown in greater detail in Appendix Table S5.

Learning curve by femoral size

Small femoral size showed a later stabilization of the curve with regards to tibial angle (22nd versus 20th) and tibial slope (35th versus 20th). Detailed results are reported in Appendix Table S6.

Discussion

The main findings of our study report that the learning curve for component positioning was achieved in approximately 50 cases. The curve of the surgical time achieved a plateau at 94 PPK.

The surgical learning curve is the improvement of surgical skills and reproducibility of results over time and/or with increasing experience related to a specific surgical technique or technology [4, 5]. The starting point of the curve is influenced by baseline knowledge, and the trend of the curve indicates the accumulated expertise during surgery. The time necessary to attain the expected expert level characterized by reproducibility and consistency of results is indicated by the plateau [2,3,4,5,6]. The learning curve for arthroplasty surgery can be complicated as it involves several variables, including surgical competence, experience, and case volume. Typically, improvements are initially seen quickly until a steady state is reached and a sigmoid-shaped curve is formed. It is complex and challenging to evaluate a specific surgeon’s learning curve for a particular procedure or new technology.

The direct anterior approach (DAA) to total hip arthroplasty is highlighted as a well-studied example of a learning curve in joint replacement surgery. During the past few decades, this technique has become increasingly popular in North America. Research has shown that DAA can improve early functional recovery [28, 29], decrease the duration of hospital stay [30], and raise the rates of early discharge from the hospital. Although there is also literature describing the downsides, many surgeons actively advertise the DAA [30]. Encouraged by this advocacy, several surgeons who are comfortable with alternate techniques to total hip arthroplasty have transitioned to the DAA and encountered troubles with the change early on. Published data reports that the learning curve of transitioning to the DAA ranges from 20 to 50 cases [31, 32], and for departments transitioning together, the number is cited as between 200 and 300 [33]. Although it is useful to know at what number of cases the steady state can be attained, surgeons must examine the results of the initial patients and the higher risks for adverse events in that cohort to determine whether the additional risk to those patients warrants the change. However, even though expertise and efficacy gradually increase over time, no clear criteria or consensus exists on how to determine and report learning curves in TKA and UKA.

The purpose of this study was to establish the learning curve for PPK and explore the impact of several demographic and technical factors on the curve itself. Our analysis showed that the stabilization of the learning curve starts approximately after the first 50 procedures, and the surgical time stabilizes around the 100th case. In terms of coherent component positioning, according to previously established radiographic trash-holds and criteria proposed by the Zimmer Biomet Instructional manual for PPK arthroplasty system [22], demographic factors such as male gender, younger age, right side, and larger tibial and femoral components, are associated with a faster stabilization of the learning curve.

In medial PKA, we aim to achieve a slight mechanical varus (3–5°) alignment to increase the success and durability of the implant. Patients with well-functioning UKAs at 10 years exhibited mild varus mechanical alignment of approximately 4°, whereas patients revised for progression of osteoarthritis averaged more valgus and those revised for loosening or subsidence averaged more varus [34,35,36].

Given the paucity of available data on learning curves related to UKAs and TKAs, and the heterogeneous methodology of relevant studies, comparison of different learning curves is arduous. For example, Zhang et al. [37] evaluated 50 consecutive cases of minimally invasive Oxford Phase III UKA performed by a single surgeon at a mean of 51 months of follow-up to determine whether there was an association between outcomes and the cumulative number of cases performed. Converse to our study, the recorded data was analysed using the cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM), which showed that failure rates diminished rapidly after 16 cases and reached an acceptable rate after 29 cases [37]. The slope of the curve, the duration of surgery, blood loss, and length of incision improved gradually with the cumulative number of procedures alike [37]. Minimally invasive Oxford Phase III UKA is a demanding surgical procedure; however, satisfactory outcomes can be achieved after 25 consecutive cases.

Kayani et al. determined a surgical team’s learning curve for introducing a robotic-arm-assisted UKA into routine surgical practice [11]. The single-surgeon cohort study included 60 consecutive conventional jig-based UKAs compared with 60 consecutive robotic-arm assisted UKAs for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Robotic-arm-assisted UKA was associated with a learning curve of six cases for operating time (p < 0.001) and surgical team confidence levels (p < 0.001). The cumulative robotic experience did not affect the accuracy of implant positioning, posterior condylar offset ratio, posterior tibial slope (p = 0.7), native joint line preservation, and postoperative limb alignment. The robotic-arm-assisted UKA improved the accuracy of femoral (p < 0.001) and tibial (p < 0.001) implant positioning with no additional risk of postoperative complications compared to conventional jig-based UKA [11].

Hamilton et al. examined 445 consecutive minimally invasive UKAs to determine whether revision and reoperation rates decreased as the number of cases performed increased, indicating the presence of a learning curve for this procedure. For the first half of UKA cases performed versus the second half, revision rates fell from 5.0% to 2.5%, and reoperation rates fell from 8.1% to 5.4%, demonstrating that despite modifications made to improve surgical techniques across time, a substantial complication rate persists in this procedure [20].

In our clinical experience, PKA is implanted in 10–20% of cases, a slightly higher percentage than in registries [7]. This number is due to the high surgical volume at our institution along with long experience which is a key factor for more satisfactory surgical results [25, 38,39,40].

In the present study, we found a deeper learning curve, which can be attributed to several factors. Apart from the surgical time and failure rate, we also analysed the surgical time, failure rate, radiographic irregularities (cortex perforation and tibial spine integrity), and correct positioning of the components. We also split the patients by sex, age, BMI, surgical side, tibial size, and femoral size. So, to our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive study that evaluates multiple variables for defining learning curves for single-compartment prostheses.

Learning curves involved in the use of new technologies and devices in joint replacement surgery are a barrier to adoption as they impede surgical workflow for operators and their assistants. This temporary obstruction to workflow must be carefully balanced when new technologies are under consideration to ensure safe care delivery and positive patient clinical outcomes. Establishing learning curves can be highly helpful for potential adopters to understand and forecast how long it may take for them to become skilled in utilizing a new technology and decide whether or not to employ the new technology. Continued research of learning curves associated with new orthopaedic technologies may better guide the decision-making process of device adoption [5].

PPK is a fixed-bearing UKA that was introduced in February 2017. Since then, it has demonstrated good preliminary outcomes. A recent multicentric study investigating PPK in 598 patients reported excellent outcomes in patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), patient satisfaction, and imaging, with no cases of revisions during the one-year follow-up [41]. Moreover, this study underlined that the use of PPK is challenging for inexperienced surgeons, so the learning curve may have impacted the outcomes [41].

There are several limitations to our study. The limited follow-up may jeopardize the ability to detect rare complications, in particular, few cases (< 20%) were performed in the first two years of the study (2018 and 2019), lengthening the learning curve. The surgeon who performed the surgeries was well ahead of the learning curve in TKA. Therefore, our results may not apply to young or inexperienced surgeons. The present study was conducted in a highly specialized orthopaedic hospital. In this respect, the results, particularly the surgical time, might be affected by several factors including caseload, financing, the experience of assistants, instrument nurses, and anaesthesiology teams. Potential ethnic differences were not considered when evaluating positioning. Recent studies demonstrated that among ethnicities, African Americans/Blacks, and Asian Americans have increased PTS in comparison with Whites [24, 25]. Nearly 25% of individuals have clinically significant slopes of < 6° or > 12°, with no difference in tibial slope among sex or age groups [42]. Finally, the rotational alignment of the components was not evaluated. The rotational alignment is evaluated using CT imaging which exposes patients to radiation. Excessive external rotation and mismatch between the femoral and tibial components might lead to suboptimal kinematics, reducing contact area and compromised durability after PKA. Finally, the rotational alignment of the components was not evaluated; to do so would have required CT scans of all patients by subjecting them to radiation exposure. Excessive external rotation and mismatch between the femoral and tibial components might lead to suboptimal kinematics, reducing contact area and compromising durability after PKA [43].

Conclusions

The learning curve for component positioning was achieved in approximately 50 cases. The curve of the surgical time achieved a plateau at 94 Persona Partial Knee. Additionally, the factors directly correlated with earlier stabilization of the learning curve in terms of component positioning were male gender, younger age, right side, and larger components.

Availability of data and materials

All data and materials are available on reasonable request to Dr. Riccardo D’Ambrosi (riccardo.dambrosi@hotmail.it).

Abbreviations

PPK:

Persona Partial Knee

UKA:

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

AIC:

Akaike Information Criterion

References

  1. Price AJ, Alvand A, Troelsen A, Katz JN, Hooper G, Gray A, Carr A, Beard D. Knee replacement. Lancet. 2018;392:1672–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoerlesberger N, Glehr M, Amerstorfer F, Hauer G, Leithner A, Sadoghi P. Residents’ Learning Curve of Total Knee Arthroplasty Based on Radiological Outcome Parameters: A Retrospective Comparative Study. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:154–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cheng YC, Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen CM, Tsai SW, Chang MC, Chen WM. Analysis of learning curve of minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: A single surgeon’s experience with 4017 cases over 9 years. J Chin Med Assoc. 2019;82:576–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nairn L, Gyemi L, Gouveia K, Ekhtiari S, Khanna V. The learning curve for the direct anterior total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Int Orthop. 2021;45:1971–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sarpong NO, Herndon CL, Held MB, Neuwirth AL, Hickernell TR, Geller JA, Cooper HJ, Shah RP. What Is the Learning Curve for New Technologies in Total Joint Arthroplasty? A Review Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13:675–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mayer C, Bittersohl B, Haversath M, Franz A, Krauspe R, Jäger M. Zilkens C (2020) The learning curve of patient-specific unikondylar arthroplasty may be advantageous to off-the-shelf implants: A preliminary study. J Orthop. 2020;22:256–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Crawford DA, Berend KR, Thienpont E. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: US and Global Perspectives. Orthop Clin North Am. 2020;51:147–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Clement ND, Al-Zibari M, Afzal I, Deehan DJ, Kader D. A systematic review of imageless hand-held robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: learning curve, accuracy, functional outcome and survivorship. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5:319–26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Vanlommel L, Neven E, Anderson MB, Bruckers L, Truijen J. The initial learning curve for the ROSA® Knee System can be achieved in 6–11 cases for operative time and has similar 90-day complication rates with improved implant alignment compared to manual instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop. 2021;8:119.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Iñiguez M, Negrín R, Duboy J, Reyes NO, Díaz R. Robot-Assisted Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Increasing Surgical Accuracy? A Cadaveric Study J Knee Surg. 2021;34:628–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Huq SS, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:1033–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lu Y, Khazi ZM, Agarwalla A, Forsythe B, Taunton MJ. Development of a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict Nonroutine Discharge Following Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:1568–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Murray DW, Parkinson RW. Usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B:432–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tyagi V, Farooq M. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Indications, Outcomes, and Complications. Conn Med. 2017;81:87–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Arirachakaran A, Choowit P, Putananon C, Muangsiri S, Kongtharvonskul J. Is unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) superior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA)? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015;25:799–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilson HA, Middleton R, Abram SGF, Smith S, Alvand A, Jackson WF, Bottomley N, Hopewell S, Price AJ. Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2019;364:l352.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kagan R, Anderson MB, Bailey T, Hofmann AA, Pelt CE. Ten-Year Survivorship, Patient-Reported Outcomes, and Satisfaction of a Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today. 2020;6:267–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaneko T, Kono N, Sunakawa T, Okuno Y, Ikegami H, Musha Y. Reliable patient-reported outcome measure and survivorship of UKA for primary spontaneous osteonecrosis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29:119–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamilton WG, Ammeen D, Engh CA Jr, Engh GA. Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:735–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019;13:S31–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zimmer-Biomet- Persona Partial Knee System. 2017. https://www.zimmerbiomet.com/content/dam/zimmer-biomet/medical-professionals/000-surgical-techniques/knee/persona-partial-knee-system-surgical-technique.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2018

  23. Pozzi F, Snyder-Mackler L, Zeni J. Physical exercise after knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of controlled trials. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49:877–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sarmah SS, Patel S, Hossain FS, Haddad FS. The radiological assessment of total and unicompartmental knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:1321–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. D’Ambrosi R, da Silva MJSV, Moura JLM, Mariani I, Serrao LD, Di Feo F, Ursino N. Radiographic and Clinical Evolution of the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2023;36:246–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mujika KM, MĂ©ndez JAJ, de Miguel AF. Advantages and Disadvantages in Image Processing with Free Software in Radiology. J Med Syst. 2018;42:36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Faldini C, Perna F, Mazzotti A, Stefanini N, Panciera A, Geraci G, Mora P, Traina F. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: effects on early post-operative rehabilitation period. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2017;31:75–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Parvizi J, Restrepo C, Maltenfort MG. Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed Through Direct Anterior Approach Provides Superior Early Outcome: Results of a Randomized Prospective Study. Orthop Clin North Am. 2016;47:497–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Shofoluwe AI, Naveen NB, Inabathula A, Ziemba-Davis M, Meneghini RM, Callaghan JJ, Warth LC. Internet Promotion of Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty by Members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:167-70.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Schwartz BE, Sisko ZW, Mayekar EM, Wang OJ, Gordon AC. Transitioning to the Direct Anterior Approach in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Is It Safe in the Current Health Care Climate? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31:2819–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Steiger RN, Lorimer M, Solomon M. What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:3860–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Brun OL, Månsson L, Nordsletten L. The direct anterior minimal invasive approach in total hip replacement: a prospective departmental study on the learning curve. Hip Int. 2018;28:156–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Slaven SE, Cody JP, Sershon RA, Ho H, Hopper RH Jr, Fricka KB. The Impact of Coronal Alignment on Revision in Medial Fixed-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35:353–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bruni D, Iacono F, Russo A, Zaffagnini S, Marcheggiani Muccioli GM, Bignozzi S, Bragonzoni L, Marcacci M. Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18:710–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bruni D, Gagliardi M, Akkawi I, Raspugli GF, Bignozzi S, Marko T, Bragonzoni L, Grassi A, Marcacci M. Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:182–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhang Q, Zhang Q, Guo W, Liu Z, Cheng L, Yue D, Zhang N. The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). J Orthop Surg Res. 2014;9:81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. D’Ambrosi R, Buda M, Nuara A, Mariani I, Scelsi M, Valli F, Ursino N, Hirschmann MT. Patellar height after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: comparison between fixed and mobile bearing. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2022;142:3449–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. D’Ambrosi R, Ursino C, Mariani I, Corona K, Dahmen J, Sciarretta FV, Valli F, Ursino N. No difference in return to amateur sports after medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 65 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30:1050–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. D’Ambrosi R, Anghilieri FM, Corona K, Mariani I, Valli F, Ursino N, Hirschmann MT. Similar rates of return to sports and BMI reduction regardless of age, gender and preoperative BMI as seen in matched cohort of hypoallergenic and standard Cobalt Chromium medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30:890–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Parratte S, Sah A, Müller N, Abshagen S. First Clinical 1-Year Outcomes of Partial Knee Arhtroplasty with the Persona® Partial Knee. 2019. https://www.lindseyrolston.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Persona-Partial-Knee-System-White-Paper.pdf Accessed 21 April 202

  42. Clinger BN, Plaster S, Passarelli T, Marshall J, Wascher DC. Differentiation in Posterior Tibial Slope by Sex, Age, and Race: A Cadaveric Study Utilizing 3-Dimensional Computerized Tomography. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50:2698–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Makhdom AM, Kerr GJ, Wu E, Lonner JH. Rotational alignment errors can occur in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty if anatomical landmarks are misused: A preoperative CT scan analysis. Knee. 2020;27:242–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRCCS Ospedale Galeazzi Sant’Ambrogio, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo D’Ambrosi & Nicola Ursino

  2. Dipartimento Di Scienze Biomediche Per La Salute, UniversitĂ  Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo D’Ambrosi

  3. Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Arcus Sportclinic, Pforzheim, Germany

    Danko Dan Milinkovic

  4. Department of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH University Medical Centre, PauwelsstraĂźe 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Filippo Migliorini

  5. Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Academic Hospital of Bolzano (SABES-ASDAA), Teaching Hospital of the Paracelsus Medical University, 39100, Bolzano, Italy

    Filippo Migliorini

  6. Institute for Maternal and Child Health IRCCS Burlo Garofolo, Trieste, Italy

    Ilaria Mariani

  7. Hewett Global Consulting, Rochester, Minneapolis, USA

    Timothy Hewett

Authors
  1. Riccardo D’Ambrosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Danko Dan Milinkovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Filippo Migliorini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ilaria Mariani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicola Ursino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Timothy Hewett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RDA: conceptualisation, writing, supervision, revision; DM: supervision, revision; FM: supervision, revision; IM: supervision, revision; NU: supervision, revision; TEH: supervision, revision. All authors have agreed to the final version to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Migliorini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Milan, Italy (CE 236/2017). Signed informed consent was obtained from all participants. All the procedures involving human participants were performed in compliance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Ambrosi, R., Milinkovic, D.D., Migliorini, F. et al. Learning curve of Persona Partial Knee (PPK) arthroplasty: a clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 128 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07215-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07215-5

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us