Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Patellar resurfacing and nonresurfacing show similar 5-year outcomes in total knee arthroplastyFive-year knee data shows resurfacing offers no benefit over leaving the kneecap alone

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that patellar resurfacing and nonresurfacing yield similar 5-year outcomes in total knee arthroplasty.

This single-center randomized controlled trial enrolled 250 knees (245 patients) undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Patients were assigned to patellar resurfacing (PR) or patellar nonresurfacing (PNR). The primary outcome was clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum 5-year follow-up of 60.0 months.

Main results showed no significant difference between groups for Knee Society Score knee (P = 0.10), Knee Society Score function (P = 0.19), Forgotten Joint Score (P = 0.24), Kujala score (P = 0.36), or Lille score (P = 0.43). Revision rates for patellofemoral causes were not significantly different (P = 0.16). Implant survival was similar: PR 93.6% versus PNR 91.8% (P = 0.96). However, 5 patients (4.5%) in the PNR group required secondary PR, and 2 patients (1.8%) in the PR group required revision of the patellar button.

Safety considerations included risks of fracture and maltracking introduced by resurfacing. Serious adverse events were not reported. Limitations include 9% lost to follow-up and 4% deceased.

The practice relevance supports a more selective approach to patellar resurfacing guided by objective criteria in the context of patella-friendly posterior-stabilized implants.

For many people getting a total knee replacement, the surgeon must decide whether to resurface the kneecap or leave it alone. This single-center trial followed 250 knees for five years to see if covering the kneecap with an implant helped. The researchers tracked pain, function, and how well the knee moved for everyone involved. They also watched for problems like the kneecap slipping out of place or the implant loosening.

The results showed no meaningful difference between the two groups. Patients in both the resurfacing group and the non-resurfacing group reported similar levels of pain relief and function. Scores measuring how well patients felt their knees worked were nearly identical. Even the rate of needing another surgery for kneecap problems was similar, with a few extra procedures needed in the group that did not get the resurfacing.

This study supports a more selective approach. Surgeons should consider specific criteria before deciding to resurface the kneecap. The data suggests that leaving the kneecap alone is a safe option that provides the same long-term results as adding an implant. Patients can discuss these findings with their doctors to make the best choice for their specific situation.

What this means for you:
Five-year results show resurfacing the kneecap offers no advantage over leaving it alone during knee replacement.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 245
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up60.0 mo
PublishedJun 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Despite extensive research, patellar management during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. We therefore asked the following: Is there a difference in clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum 5-year follow-up with a modern posterior-stabilized TKA performed with or without patellar resurfacing (PR)? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center prospective randomized trial included 250 knees (245 patients) undergoing primary TKA between April 2017 and November 2018. Exclusion criteria were isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, constrained TKA, and preoperative flexion less than 90°. Patients were randomized into PR or patellar nonresurfacing (PNR) groups, receiving the same posterior-stabilized "patella-friendly" prosthesis. Clinical evaluation at 5-year follow-up included the Knee Society Score (KSS), Forgotten Joint Score, Kujala and Lille scores for anterior knee pain, and range of motion. Radiographic assessment evaluated patellofemoral osteoarthritis progression and patellar implant loosening. Complications and surgical revisions were recorded. RESULTS: There were 213 knees (109 in PR, 104 in PNR) available with a 5-year follow-up (9% lost to follow-up and 4% deceased). Clinical outcomes showed no significant differences between groups (KSS knee: P = 0.10; KSS function: P = 0.19; Forgotten Joint Score: P = 0.24; Kujala: P = 0.36; Lille: P = 0.43). There were five patients (4.5%) in PNR who required secondary PR, whereas two patients (1.8%) in PR required revision of the patellar button. The revision rate for patellofemoral causes was 3.8%, without significant difference between groups (P = 0.16). At 60 months, implant survival was similar between PR and PNR (93.6 and 91.8%; P = 0.96). CONCLUSION: This large prospective randomized study found no clinical advantage of routine PR at 5-year follow-up. While resurfacing may reduce anterior knee pain, it also introduces risks such as fracture and maltracking. In the context of patella-friendly posterior-stabilized implants, these findings support a more selective approach, which should be guided by objective criteria.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.