Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 30;12(6):e062721.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062721.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial

Affiliations

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial

Cerys Joyce Tassinari et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Introduction: Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery.

Methods and analysis: KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling.

Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.

Keywords: knee; musculoskeletal disorders; orthopaedic & trauma surgery; statistics & research methods.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: HS—consultant to Orthofix and received research grant from Orthofix. Received payment for teaching responsibilities from Orthofix and Smith & Nephew. HP—received grant funding from KTP, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Zimmer Biomet Healthcare, B Braun & Welcome Trust. Received consulting fees from Medacta International, Smith and Nephew, Depuy Synthes, JRI Orthopaedics, Janssen, Meril Life, Zimmer Biomet & Paradigm Pharmaceuticals. Received payment from Invibio for presentations, from Kennedy’s Law for expert testimony & from Pacira Pharmaceuticals for study conduct. Received payments from Medacta International, Depuy Synthes & Zimmer Biomet for attending meetings/travel. HSi—received grant funding from EPSRC Ultrasonic Surgery & EPSRC 2050 EnLightenus. Submitted patent with Joint Assist patient application. AM—received grant funding from Stryker for the RACER-Hip trial.

References

    1. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, et al. . Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008;58:26–35. 10.1002/art.23176 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, et al. . A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1597–606. 10.1056/NEJMoa1505467 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP, et al. . The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017;389:1424–30. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Deehan DJ, Murray JD, Birdsall PD, et al. . Quality of life after knee revision arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2006;77:761–6. 10.1080/17453670610012953 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stambough JB, Clohisy JC, Barrack RL, et al. . Increased risk of failure following revision total knee replacement in patients aged 55 years and younger. Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1657–62. 10.1302/0301-620X.96B12.34486 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources