2017 Clinical Research Summary
VERASENSE Sensor-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty offers proven clinical and economic advantages for surgeons and hospitals.
This downloadable booklet highlights VERASENSETM data from a compilation of research performed through January 2018 either in collaboration with or independent from OrthoSensor, Inc. The content of this booklet is to be used for reference only. The summaries include clinical studies that have resulted in the following proven results from the use of VERASENSE in Sensor-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty:
- 98% of balanced patients report being satisfied to very satisfied 3 years post-op1
- Significantly higher Forgotten Joint Scores compared to unbalanced patients2
- VERASENSE patients require less PT and 67% fewer MUAs post-op2-4
- Decreased the need for all-component revision by 88%, facilitating implant cost mitigation5
- Almost 75% lower rate of soft tissue balance-related early revision TKA (<2 years) compared to national averages1,6-10
Details and references for the above clinical and economic advantages are available within the 2017 Clinical Research Summary.
CLICK THE BUTTON BELOW TO DOWNLOAD THE
2017 VERASENSE CLINICAL RESEARCH SUMMARY
Questions / For More Information
1. 2-Year, 3-Year Clinical Outcomes, OrthoSensor Multicenter Evaluation. Pending Publication. Data on file at OrthoSensor, Inc.
2. Golladay et al. Does a Balanced TKA Produce a More Forgotten Joint? ISTA/AAHKS 2017. Longer-term follow-up data evaluating FJS-12 and additional PROMs along with the economic implications is ongoing.
3. Chow et al. The use of intraoperative sensors significantly increases the patient-reported rate of improvement in primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2017.
4. Geller JA, Lakra A, Murtaugh T. The Use of Electronic Sensor Device to Augment Ligament Balancing Leads to a Lower Rate of Arthrofibrosis after Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017 May; 32(5): 1502-1504.
5. Leone W, Geller J, Chow J, Branovacki G, Mariani J, Golladay G, Meere P. Using Sensors to Evaluate Revision TKA:Treating the “Looks Good; Feels Bad” Knee. EC Orthopaedics. 3.5 (2016):381-385.
6. Bozic K, Kurtz S, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010. 468: 45-51.
7. Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R. Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Join Surg. 2015; 97(9): 715-720.
8. Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant? Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(11 Supple A): 101-104.
9. Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, et al. Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplasty 2013;28(8 Suppl):116–119.
10. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9):1774–1778.