Library Subscription: Guest
Begell Digital Portal Begell Digital Library eBooks Journals References & Proceedings Research Collections
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants
SJR: 0.332 SNIP: 0.491 CiteScore™: 0.89

ISSN Print: 1050-6934
ISSN Online: 1940-4379

Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants

DOI: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.2013010142
pages 175-188

Treatment Preferences of Patients with Early Knee Osteoarthritis: A Decision Board Analysis Assessing High Tibial Osteotomy versus the KineSpring® Knee Implant System

Chuan Silvia Li
Global Research Solutions, Inc., Burlington, Ontario, Canada; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Rudolf W. Poolman
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Mohit Bhandari
CLARITY Research Group, McMaster University, Department of Orthopedic Surgery Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Canada and Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Hamilton General Hospital, Canada


Introduction: Decision boards can be useful in shared decision making by helping patients and their physicians choose among treatment options. Two surgical treatments for early knee osteoarthritis (OA) are high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and the KineSpring® Knee Implant System. The primary objective of this study was to determine patient preferences between these two treatments using a decision board. Methods: We developed a decision board that presented information on HTO and the KineSpring System for treating knee OA. First, it was presented to 15 individuals for a pilot test and a "scope test." Then it was presented to 81 individuals who were asked to imagine that they had early to midstage knee OA, and this group was administered a complete a series of questions, including their treatment preference and what they would be willing to pay if they elected to use the KineSpring System. Descriptive statistics were calculated and a chi-squared test was conducted to assess any significant differences in patient preferences based on demographic characteristics. Results: Our pilot test confirmed that most participants (87%) agreed that the decision board was easy to understand and helped them in making a decision. Of 81 respondents, the KineSpring System was preferred by 60% (n = 49). Individuals selecting KineSpring would be willing to pay an average of $2,700 to receive it over HTO. Conclusions: When provided with treatment options and information, 60% of individuals preferred the KineSpring System over HTO. The decision board was well-received as a useful tool for presenting information.