Smith & Nephew, plc recently put its best knee forward, taking the opportunity to showcase its JOURNEY II Bi-Cruciate Stabilized (BCS) knee replacement at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting in Chicago. The company’s new PHYSIOLOGICAL MATCHING Technology takes advantage of its LifeMOD human simulation software.
Smith & Nephew engineers were able to conduct proprietary analysis of the bone, ligament and muscle forces that impact the knee, and then account for those forces within the design of an implant that restores anatomic shapes and normal motion.
“Unlike implants that create unnatural motion with a symmetric, circular design, or with a rotating platform, the JOURNEY II BCS knee accommodates the swing-and-rotate of the knee with the same engineering principles the body naturally uses, ” explains Steven Haas, M.D., Chief of the Knee Service at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, in the March 19, 2013 news release. “As a result, the muscles and ligaments around the new joint don’t have to work harder because the implant’s natural shape and resulting motion allow these soft tissues to move in familiar ways. This leads to higher patient satisfaction scores, more mechanical efficiency of the muscle, and a more natural feeling while walking or bending in the months after their procedure.”
The JOURNEY II BCS knee is made from Smith & Nephew’s VERILAST Technology. The combination of two wear-reducing materials—proprietary OXINIUM alloy and a highly cross-linked plastic liner—VERILAST Technology generates a significant reduction in implant wear compared to traditional bearing couples on the market.
Scott Elliott, senior vice president, Smith & Nephew told OTW, “Our biggest challenge during the development of the JOURNEY II Knee is the same challenge every orthopedic company faces—creating a knee replacement that provides accurate and reproducible results for patients, and a simple, intuitive technique for surgeons. We stretched this challenge to include an implant which is designed to restore the kinematic patterns of the normal knee in an attempt to gain the physiologic advantages inherent in that motion.”
“Patient satisfaction scores for total knee replacement indicate they don’t always have confidence in their physical movement as a result of their traditional, non-anatomically shaped device. Our challenge was to give them back this confidence. And we believe we have in ways that no other knee replacement is capable of doing.”
“Without the current version of our proprietary LifeMod software, we would not have been able to perform more than 100, 000 virtual surgeries where we reestablished that implant ‘fit’ is subordinate to implant ‘shape’. Beyond simple bone coverage, an implant must fit and move correctly within the soft tissue envelope and reproduce the original anatomic shapes that guide the knee and soft tissues through normal motion.”
“These virtual surgeries, and the 4, 500 actual surgeries performed during the knee’s limited market release, breathed life into our trademarked design concept called PHYSIOLOGICAL MATCHING. In other words, the implant’s design has to match normal anatomical features in order to replicate the traits of normal physiological performance, such as function, motion and durability. The JOURNEY II Knee, coupled with our low-wear VERILAST material technology, uniquely achieves this.”
I am a 65 year old male that in the past has had 3 major reconstructive surgeries on my knee. Some time ago I was told that I need a new knee but have put it off for as long as I could. I can no longer put this off, and am trying to educate myself to find the very best knee joint, surgeon, and hospital available. I have spent hours at your web site and am very impressed with the advertisement of your Journey II BCS Knee Joint, with Verilast and Visionaire Technology. However, I have deep concern when I search for the best surgeons. Many are using one of your competior’s products. This causes me to wonder why? My search leads me to find documentation about your January 2010 recall of nearly 40,000 defective tibial baseplates. I believe that these base plates are made with your patented Oxinium metal and the recall has something to do breakage. This could be the reason so many of the more well known and successful Dr’s are not using your product. It could be that because of this failure they are not using your products. They might in the future, however are waiting to witness how Smith Nephew address’s the recall. To be convinced they may have to see actual test results proving the problem has been solved. This will take a lot of time and money to do. This was 4 years ago. What changes have you made to solve this problem? The attributes of the JourneyII BCS knee are very appealing to me compared to your competitor’s products, but I am somewhat hesitant to commit to it. Please provide me with some assurance that your quality issues are behind you.
Sincerely,
Tom Bell
Waukee, IA
Tom: I am in your age range, have been putting of knee replacement for eight years getting by with knee gel injections. However the time is approaching and my surgeon here in Las Vegas is recommending the Journey 2 XL prosthesis. Have you heard anymore about improvements after the recall and have you gone ahead with a knee replacement surgery? Hopefully events have been successful for you and would appreciate hearing of your experience. Thanks, Steve