Medacta GMK Sphere® Medial-Pivot, Cruciate Substituting vs. Medacta GMK PS Posterior Stabilized Kne vs. OMNI Apex Knee Ultracongruent vs. Triathlon® Posterior Stabilized & Cruciate Substituting Outcomes Study
Medacta GMK Sphere® Medial-Pivot, Cruciate Substituting vs. Medacta GMK PS Posterior Stabilized Kne vs. OMNI Apex Knee Ultracongruent vs. Triathlon® Posterior Stabilized & Cruciate Substituting Outcomes Study
The study is a prospective, randomized comparison of total knee arthroplasty with the Medacta GMK Sphere® knee compared to the Medacta GMK PS knee, with comparison to data from previous trials of similar study design.
There is no consensus within the Arthroplasty community as to whether a traditional post and cam-style PS total knee device is superior to a medial-pivot, more congruent device. However, the majority of surgeons seem to prefer the former, though there is a minority that uses the latter device with great success.
To date, there have been few prospective trials directly comparing these devices, and none with the latest generation of TKA implants. Almost all such studies have been retrospective, and/or non-randomized, and/or utilizing older generation devices.
The primary objective of this study is to compare the average Forgotten Knee Score (FJS) of those patients receiving the Medacta GMK Sphere knee with the average FJS of those receiving the Medacta GMK PS knee at the two and five year time points. It is expected that those subjects implanted with the Medacta GMK Sphere knee will show significantly better Forgotten Joint Scores at two and five year follow-up when compared with those receiving the Medacta GMK PS knee. The FJS was not collected in the prior comparison studies, and so cannot be evaluated across the knee systems.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria: