Consensus Statements

News and Upcoming Activities - Consensus Statements - Technology Assessment Statements - About the Consensus Program - CME Online - Search

Related Conference Materials
   
Background and Agenda
   News Release
  
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Systematic Evidence Review 
  
Program and Abstract Book
   
NLM Bibliography
   
Glossary

Total Knee Replacement Conference
Webcast (live link)
(Requires RealPlayer software, which can be
downloaded free of charge from
NIH Videocasting.)
   Day 1 (archive 12/8/2003)
   Day 2 (archive 12/9/2003)
   Day 3 (archive 12/10/2003)

NIH Consensus Development Conference on
Total Knee Replacement


December 8-10, 2003

 Read Final NIH Consensus Statement

Download Final NIH Consensus Statement
(Get Free Adobe Acrobat Reader)

NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives, based on (1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), (2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session; (3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session; and (4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.

The statement reflects the panel's assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a "snapshot in time" of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research.


Background

Total knee replacement (TKR) has shown increasing success in relieving knee pain and improving joint function for patients suffering from knee problems due to injury, degenerative disease, and inflammation. Each year, approximately 300,000 TKR surgeries are performed in the United States for end-stage arthritis of the knee joint. As the number of TKR surgeries performed each year increases and the indications for TKR extend to younger patients, a review of available scientific information is necessary to enhance clinical decisionmaking and stimulate further research.

First used in the late 1950's, early TKR implants poorly mimicked the natural motion of the knee and resulted in high failure and complication rates. Advances in TKR technology within the past 10 years have enhanced the design and fit of knee implants, resulting in improved short-term and long-term outcomes.

Despite the increased success of TKR, questions remain concerning which materials and implant designs are most effective for specific patient populations and which surgical approach is optimal for a successful outcome. Physical, social, and psychological issues may influence the success of TKR, and understanding patient differences could facilitate the decisionmaking process before, during, and after surgery, thereby achieving the greatest benefit from TKR. Particular attention also must be given to the treatment and timing options related to the revision of failed TKR surgery.


Conference Process

To address these questions, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases and the National Institutes of Health Office of Medical Applications of Research are sponsoring a consensus development conference to explore and assess the current scientific knowledge regarding TKR. Specifically, the conference will address the following key questions:

  1. What are the current indications and outcomes for primary TKR?
  2. How do specific characteristics of the patient, material and design of the prosthesis, and surgical factors affect the short-term and long-term outcomes of primary TKR?
  3. Are there important perioperative interventions that influence outcomes?
  4. What are the indications, approaches, and outcomes for revision TKR?
  5. What factors explain disparities in the utilization of TKR in different populations?
  6. What are the directions for future research?

During the first 1 1/2 days of the conference, experts will present the latest TKR research findings to an independent panel. After weighing all of the scientific evidence, the panel will prepare a consensus statement answering the questions above. On the final day of the conference, the panel chairperson will read the draft statement to the conference audience, and invite comments and questions. A press conference will follow, that afternoon, to allow the panel to respond to questions from the media.


Conference Sponsors

Office of Medical Applications of Research, NIH
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, NIAMS

Cosponsors

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NICHD
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA
National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST
Office of Research on Women's Health, NIH

Partners

National Library of Medicine, NLM
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ



Agenda

December 8            December 9            December 10


Day 1: Monday, December 8, 2003

8:30 a.m.

Opening Remarks
Stephen I. Katz, M.D., Ph.D.
Director
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
National Institutes of Health

8:40 a.m.

Charge to the Panel
Susan Rossi, Ph.D., M.P.H.
Deputy Director
Office of Medical Applications of Research
National Institutes of Health

8:50 a.m.

Conference Overview and Panel Activities
E. Anthony Rankin, M.D.
Panel and Conference Chairperson
Chief, Orthopaedic Surgery
Providence Hospital


I. Current Indications and Outcomes

9:00 a.m.

Current Indications for Primary Total Knee Replacement
Thomas S. Thornhill, M.D.
John B. and Buckminster Brown Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
Harvard Medical School
Orthopaedic Surgeon in Chief
Brigham and Women's Hospital

9:20 a.m.

Known Complications of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty
Peter F. Sharkey, M.D., M.S.
Associate Professor
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Rothman Institute
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

9:40 a.m.

Expected Outcomes of Primary Total Knee Replacement
Jeffrey N. Katz, M.D., M.S.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Division of Rheumatology, Immunology and Allergy
Brigham and Women's Hospital

10:00 a.m.

Summary of Evidence on Predictors of Total Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Robert L. Kane, M.D.
Professor
University of Minnesota School of Public Health
Director, Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center

10:20 a.m.

Discussion


II. Variables That Affect Short- and Long-Term Outcomes

10:50 a.m.

Effects of Patient and Surgical Factors on Total Knee Replacement Outcomes
Joshua J. Jacobs, M.D.
Crown Family Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
Rush Medical College

11:10 a.m.

The Effect of General Implant Design Factors on Outcomes in Primary Total Knee Replacement
Timothy M. Wright, Ph.D.
Senior Scientist, Hospital for Special Surgery
Professor of Applied Biomechanics
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Weill Medical College of Cornell University

11:30 a.m.

The Specific Effect of the Mobile Bearing Design on the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Primary Total Knee Replacement
Robert B. Bourne, M.D., FRCSC
Professor and Chairman
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery
Department of Surgery
London Health Sciences Centre
University of Western Ontario

11:50 a.m.

Discussion

12:20 p.m.

Lunch

1:30 p.m.

The Current Status of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Richard D. Scott, M.D.
Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery
Harvard Medical School

1:50 p.m.

The Effect of Material Factors on the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Primary Total Knee Replacement
Clare M. Rimnac, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Case Western Reserve University

2:10 p.m.

The Effect of Knee Kinematics, Gait, and Wear on the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Primary Total Knee Replacement
Thomas P. Andriacchi, Ph.D.
Professor
Division of Biomechanical Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Stanford University

2:30 p.m.

Discussion

3:00 p.m.

Osteolysis: Etiology and Emerging Nonsurgical Treatments
Richard J. Looney, M.D.
Associate Professor of Medicine
Division of Rheumatology
Department of Medicine
University of Rochester

3:20 p.m.

Osteolysis: Surgical Treatment
Gerard A. Engh, M.D.
Director, Knee Research
Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute

3:40 p.m.

Discussion


III. Medical Interventions That Influence Outcomes

4:10 p.m.

Medical Interventions That Influence Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Total Knee Replacement
E. Michael Keating, M.D.
Orthopaedic Surgeon
Center for Hip and Knee Surgery

4:30 p.m.

Pre- and Postoperative Rehabilitation Interventions That Influence Outcomes of Primary and Secondary Total Knee Replacement
Victoria A. Brander, M.D.
Director, Northwestern Arthritis Institute
Assistant Professor, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

4:50 p.m.

Discussion

5:20 p.m.

Adjournment

 


Day 2: Tuesday, December 9, 2003


IV. Indications, Approaches, and Outcomes for Revision Total Knee Replacement and Salvage Procedures

8:30 a.m.

Indications and Approaches for Revision Total Knee Replacement and Salvage Procedures
Chitranjan S. Ranawat, M.D.
Chairman, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Lenox Hill Hospital

8:50 a.m.

Salvage Procedures for Failed Total Knee Replacement
Aaron G. Rosenberg, M.D.
Professor of Surgery
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Rush Medical College

9:10 a.m.

Outcomes of Revision Total Knee Replacement and Salvage Procedures for Failed Total Knee Replacement
Nizar N. Mahomed, M.D., Sc.D.
Smith and Nephew Chair in Orthopaedic Research
Associate Professor
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery
Department of Surgery
University Health Network
University of Toronto

9:30 a.m.

Functional Outcome Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Meta-analysis
Khaled J. Saleh, M.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
University of Minnesota School of Medicine
Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center


V. Disparities in the Utilization of Total Knee Replacement

9:50 a.m.

Disparities and Potential Inequities in the Use of Total Joint Replacement
Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, M.D., Ph.D., M.Sc.
Professor of Medicine
Department of Health Services Research and Rheumatology
Baylor College of Medicine

10:10 a.m.

Disparities in Utilization of Total Knee Arthroplasty
Timothy J. Wilt, M.D., M.P.H.
Professor
Section of General Medicine
Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center
University of Minnesota
Co-Director, Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center

10:30 a.m.

Patients' Perspectives: Qualitative Research Before and After Surgery
Paul A. Dieppe, M.D., FRCP, FFPH
Director
Medical Research Council's Health Services Research Collaboration
Department of Social Medicine
University of Bristol
Bristol, United Kingdom

10:50 a.m.

Discussion

11:20 a.m.

Adjournment


Day 3: Wednesday, December 10, 2003

9:00 a.m.

Presentation of the Consensus Development Statement

9:30 a.m.

Public Discussion

11:00 a.m.

Conference Adjourns

2:00 p.m.

Press Conference


Glossary

 

Absolute Risk


 

The number of new cases that have occurred during a given time interval, divided by the population at risk at the beginning of the time period; the observed risk of an event in a population.

 

Anthropathy


 

Joint disease.

 

Arthroplasty


 

Replacement of a joint or part of a joint with artificial components.

 

Aseptic loosening


 

Loosening in the absence of infection.

 

Association


 

A relationship between two conditions or states such that if one is present, the other is likely to be so as well (direct association). A causal relationship is not necessarily implied. In an inverse association, if one condition is present the other is likely not to be present.

 

Attributable Risk (AR)


 

The excess risk of disease that can be ascribed to exposure to the risk factor, over and above that experienced by people who are not exposed. AR is calculated by subtracting the incidence of the disease among those not exposed, from the incidence among those who are exposed. It provides an estimate of the number of cases of the disease that might be prevented if exposure to the risk factor were eliminated. AR is useful for determining the magnitude of the public health problem posed by an exposure.

 

Bias


 

Error that causes observed results to differ systematically from the truth.

 

Cartilage


 

A tough, stretchy tissue that covers the ends of bones to form a low-friction, shock-absorbing surface for joints.

 

Case-Control Study


 

An observational or descriptive analytic study in which diseased and non-diseased, or affected and non-affected subjects, are identified after diagnosis of disease in cases and then compared regarding specific characteristics or exposures to determine possible association or risk for the disease in question.

 

Case-Fatality Ratio


 

The proportion of those with a given disease who die of that disease (at any time, unless specified).

 

Clinical Trial


 

An experimental study in humans measuring the effect and value of intervention(s) (such as a new drug) in a treated group, often in comparison to a control group. Subjects are followed forward in time to study the effect of the intervention (exposure) on outcome (such as a disease, a marker of disease, or death).

 

Cohort


 

A group that shares a common experience (e.g., an exposure, birth in a particular time frame, residence in a specific locale) within a defined time period. Cohort studies compare exposed to non-exposed groups by following them through time.

 

Condyle


 

A rounded projection on a bone.

 

Confidence Interval

 

 

The range of numerical values in which we can be confident (to a computed probability, such as 95%) that the population value being estimated will be found. Confidence intervals indicate the precision of an estimate; where confidence intervals are wide, they indicate less precise estimates of effect. The larger the trial's sample size, the larger the number of outcome events and the greater becomes the confidence that the true value is close to the estimate based on the observed data. Thus the confidence intervals narrow and precision is increased.

 

Confounding


 

When an apparent association between a risk factor and a disease is actually due to a different risk factor, the association of interest is said to be confounded. A potential confounding variable, when it can be measured, can often be taken into account in the analysis of an association between the risk factor of interest and the disease.

 

Crossover Design


 

Describes clinical trials in which one group of patients takes one active treatment and another group takes another active treatment or a placebo; at some point in a cross-over study, one treatment group starts taking the alternative treatment or placebo and patients in the second group are switched to the first active treatment.

 

Cross-sectional Study


 

A study in which subjects are sampled at a given point in time randomly or by convenience from a population of interest, and exposure and disease are evaluated at the same time, so that the ability to establish a temporal association is limited. This design can be used to estimate the prevalence of a disease or an exposure, or associations between exposures and disease.

 

Cruciate ligaments


 

Strong bands of tissue that run anteriorly and posteriorly in the knee to stabilize it.

 

Double-blinded


 

Describes a study design in which neither the physician assessing the effects of the study intervention nor the participants know which treatment participants are receiving.

 

Ecologic Study


 

A study in which rates or prevalence of disease in a population are juxtaposed with estimates of the prevalence of a risk factor. Individual-level information, including data on confounding factors that may explain observed associations, is generally not known. For example, comparison of rates of disease among countries with different dietary habits is an ecologic study design. It is also not known to what extent diseased individuals overlap with exposed individuals. Such studies are considered to be most useful for generating hypotheses for further study.

 

Effectiveness


 

A measure of the benefit resulting from an intervention for a given health problem under usual conditions of clinical care; this form of evaluation considers both the efficacy of an intervention and its acceptance by those to whom it is offered, answering the question, "Does the practice do more good than harm to people to whom it is offered?"

 

Effect Modification


 

See Interaction.

 

Efficacy


 

A measure of the benefit resulting from an intervention for a given health problem under the ideal conditions of an investigation; it answers the question, "Does the practice do more good than harm to people who fully comply with the recommendations?"

 

Exposure


 

An epidemiologic term describing any factor hypothesized to be associated with a given disease outcome; sometimes referred to as "independent variable," "predictive factor," or "risk factor."

 

Femur


 

Thigh or upper leg bone.

 

Generalizability


 

Extent to which results of a research study can be extended to other situations.

 

Gonarthrosis


 

Arthritis of the knee joint due to degeneration or trauma.

 

Hematoma


 

A mass of clotted blood that forms in tissue.

 

Incidence


 

The number of cases of disease newly diagnosed per unit of person-time, among people at risk for the disease. It is a measure of risk of disease (see Absolute Risk).

 

Intention to Treat Analysis


 

A method for data analysis in a randomized clinical trial in which individual outcomes are analyzed according to the group to which they have been randomized, even if they never received the treatment they were assigned. By simulating practical experience it provides a better measure of effectiveness (versus efficacy).

 

Interaction


 

Describes a situation in which a risk factor demonstrates a different effect on disease risk in different groups of study subjects. Also called Effect Modification.

 

Lead Time Bias


 

When early diagnosis due to screening falsely appears to prolong survival from a disease.

 

Length Bias


 

When patients with less aggressive disease are over-represented in the screened population.

 

Ligament


 

A fibrous band that connects bones or cartilage, serving to support and strengthen a joint.

 

Meta-analysis


 

The process of using statistical methods to combine the results of two or more independent studies to yield a summary answer to a question of interest. The rationale behind this approach is to provide results with more statistical power (i.e., greater numbers) to evaluate a hypothesis than the power provided by the individual studies alone.

 

Morbidity


 

Any measure describing the incidence, burden, duration, severity, or consequences of illness or disease.

 

Mortality


 

Mortality can be expressed as either of two quantitative measures. The mortality rate is expressed as number of deaths per person-time, in a defined population, in a defined time period. The numerator can be total deaths, age- or gender-specific deaths, or cause-specific deaths; the denominator is the number of persons at risk of dying in the stated category.

 

Multiple Comparisons Problem


 

Examination of a large number of hypotheses in the same study. A certain percentage will show a positive result by chance alone. Also referred to as multiplicity.

 

Multivariable Analysis


 

A set of statistical techniques by which the role of multiple factors in risk of a disease can be evaluated simultaneously, accounting for the presence of each.

 

Negative Predictive Value


 

The proportion of people with a negative screening test that do not have the disease of interest.

 

Nested Case-Control Study


 

A study in which subjects are selected from an existing cohort study on the basis of their disease status; exposures in case subjects are compared to those in subjects not diagnosed with the disease of interest.

 

Number Needed to Treat


 

The number of patients who must be exposed to an intervention before the clinical outcome of interest occurs; for example, the number of patients needed to treat to prevent one adverse outcome.

 

Observational Study


 

Any kind of epidemiologic investigation (for example, case reports, case series, cohorts, or cross-sectional studies) in which naturally occurring patterns of exposures and diseases or other outcomes in humans are studied. Contrast with experimental study or clinical or randomized trial.

 

Odds Ratio


 

A measure of the degree of association often used in case-control studies; for example, the odds of exposure among the cases compared with the odds of exposure among the controls. In the case of rare diseases, the odds ratio can be considered an estimate of relative risk.

 

Osteolysis


 

An inflammatory response, stimulated by particulate debris generated by wear of the artificial joint components, that may lead to implant loosening and ultimate failure of the partial or total knee replacement.

 

Osteonecrosis


 

Death of bone, often caused by an inadequate blood supply or infection.

 

Osteotomy


 

Cutting or removal of a section of bone.

 

Overdiagnosis


 

Detection by screening of abnormalities that do not affect the lifespan or health of the patient.

 

Patella


 

Knee cap.

 

Population Attributable Risk (PAR)


 

Population attributable risk is a measure of the excess risk of disease in a population that can be attributed to the presence of a given risk factor. PAR is calculated by multiplying the attributable risk (AR) by the prevalence of exposure to the risk factor in a population. PAR can be estimated in a cohort or experimental study if an independent estimate of the proportion of people exposed to the risk factor is available.

 

Positive Predictive Value


 

The proportion of people with a positive test that have the disease of interest.

 

Prevalence


 

Prevalence, a measure of present status rather than of newly occurring disease, is defined as the ratio of the total number of all individuals who have an attribute or disease at a particular point in time to the population at risk of having the attribute or disease. This is point prevalence. When a given period of time is used instead of a specific time point, we refer to period prevalence.

 

Prothesis


 

An artificial component to replace a removed or diseased part.

 

Randomized


 

A clinical trial design in which patients are randomly allocated to receive either a particular new treatment, placebo, or standard therapy. Randomization is a means to evenly distribute into each study arm of a clinical trial both known and unknown confounding factors that could bias assessment of the intervention(s) under study. It is intended to avoid selection biases within a trial.

 

Relative Risk


 

The relative risk of a disease or condition is the ratio of its incidence in exposed persons to incidence in non-exposed persons. Relative risk can be calculated only from a cohort study or clinical trial in which a group of patients with exposure to the risk factor or treatment and a group without the risk factor or treatment are first identified and then followed through time to determine which persons develop the outcome of interest.

 

Reproducibility


 

When the results of a test or measure are identical or closely similar each time it is conducted.

 

Risk Factor


 

See Exposure.

 

Selection Bias


 

A bias in assignment or a confounding variable that arises systematically from issues related to the study design, rather than by chance. This can occur when the study and control groups are chosen so that they differ from each other by one or more factors that may affect the outcome of the study.

 

Sensitivity


 

The proportion or percentage of those with a specific disease or condition who are correctly classified as positive by a diagnostic test for the given disease or condition.

 

Sepsis


 

Infection.

 

Simpson's Paradox


 

Simpson's paradox notes that two data sets can separately support one conclusion while the union of the data supports the opposite conclusion.

 

Specificity


 

Specificity measures the proportion or percentage of those without the specific disease or condition who are correctly classified as disease-free by a diagnostic test.

 

Spectrum Bias


 

In a study of a screening or diagnostic test, if a disease marker is compared in subjects known to have the disease of interest (cases) versus healthy controls, the specificity of the test may be overestimated, because the full range of conditions that might affect measurement of the marker, and that would be expected to be seen clinically, are not represented in the control group. The resulting bias in the estimated specificity is known as spectrum bias.

 

Subset Analysis


 

Evaluation of a hypothesized association in a defined group (e.g., by sex or race) within a study population. Also see Multiple Comparisons Problem.

 

Surrogate Endpoints


 

A surrogate endpoint of a clinical trial is a laboratory measurement or a physical sign used as a substitute for more clinically meaningful endpoints that directly measure how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Changes induced by a therapy to a surrogate endpoint are assumed to reflect or predict changes in clinically relevant endpoints.

 

Tibia


 

The larger of the two lower leg bones.

 

Valgus deformity


 

Bent outward or twisted away from the midline of the body.

 

Varus deformity


 

Bent inward or twisted away from the midline of the body.

 

Will Rogers Phenomenon


 

Will Rogers once proposed that, when Okies started moving from Oklahoma to California, the average IQ of both states was elevated. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the setting of diagnosis and prognosis of disease. Changes in diagnostic technologies often affect the categorization of patients by stage of disease, in a process known as stage migration. Some patients who in an earlier era would have been diagnosed with stage 1 lung cancer may now, given the availability of modern CT scans, be found to have distant metastases, which would categorize them as stage 4. The transfer of the worst-prognosis patients from the stage 1 category into the stage 4 category, where they are now among the best-prognosis patients, thus improves the average prognosis for both groups. However, the overall prognosis for lung cancer patients in general remains the same.




NIH - Consensus Page - NLM HSTAT

 

 

NIH Home Page | Consensus Page | NLM HSTAT Home Page