LONDON, Dec. 3, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Smith+Nephew (LSE:SN,NYSE:SNN), the global medical technology business, is pleased to announce the completion of the first surgeries utilizing its new JOURNEY II Unicompartmental Knee (UK) System. Built on the heritage of the most clinically successful partial knee,1,2 JOURNEY II UK is designed to help patients rediscover their normal life before they first experienced knee pain.
The new JOURNEY II UK system is designed to provide faster recovery,3-6 improved functionality4,7-10 and higher patient satisfaction9,11-14 than other unicompartmental options. It does this by incorporating both an increased size range and lateral specific implant, which enables surgeons performing partial knee arthroplasty to maintain the shape, position and motion15 of a normal knee joint – critical to improving patient outcomes.
“The new JOURNEY II Unicompartmental Knee System combines a straightforward surgical technique with an implant offering additional sizes for optimal coverage,” said Dr. Kevin Fricka, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Anderson Orthopaedic Clinic. “I am very excited for what this new system can do for my patients by enabling faster recovery and improved functionality, and I am very encouraged by the outcomes from my first cases.”
JOURNEY II UK is also meant to drive value and cost-effectiveness through a reduced OR footprint.16-18 Studies show that unicompartmental procedures may result in thousands of dollars in cost savings to payers via decreased implant and procedure costs.16 And, when used in conjunction with its NAVIO™ Handheld Robotics and VISIONAIRE™ Patient Matched Instrumentation, Smith+Nephew offers healthcare providers a comprehensive solution to partial knee replacements that no other company can match.
“We are thrilled to introduce the JOURNEY II Unicompartmental Knee System – a combination of the most successful and innovative design features of our knee arthroplasty portfolio,” said Skip Kiil, President of Orthopaedics at Smith+Nephew. “Combining cost-effective solutions for healthcare systems with the potential for better patient outcomes is a win-win, and underscores our purpose of helping people restore their bodies and their self-belief.”
Smith+Nephew has a rich history with unicompartmental knees – including one of the first-ever commercially produced systems.19 JOURNEY II UK continues this evolution utilizing best-in-class technology from Smith+Nephew’s highly successful JOURNEY II platform as well as its ZUK Unicompartmental Knee – the most clinically successful knee across all major registries.1,2
Global commercial release for JOURNEY II UK is expected to begin in early 2020.
1. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty: 2019 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA, 2019.
2. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 16th Annual Report. 2019. Hertfordshire, UK.
3. Ho JC, Stitzlein RN, Green CJ, Stoner T, Froimson MI. Return to Sports Activity following UKA and TKA. J Knee Surg. 2016;29:254-259.
4. Witjes S, Gouttebarge V, Kuijer PP, van Geenan RC, Poolman RW, Kerkhoffs GM. Return to Sports and Physical Activity After Total and Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46:269–292.
5. Jennings, JM, Kleeman-Forsthuber LT, Bolognesi MP. Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty of the Knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(5):166-76.
6. Griffin T, Rowden N, Morgan D, Atkinson R, Woodruff P, Maddern G. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis: a systematic study. ANZ J Surg. 2007;77(4):214–221.
7. Katayama M, Higuchi H, Kimura M, et al. Proprioception and performance after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. International Orthopaedics. 2004:28(5):278-281.
8. Willis-Owen CA, Brust K, Alsop H, Miraldo M, Cobb JP. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: An analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. The Knee. 2009;16(6):473–478.
9. Fabre-Aubrespy M, Ollivier M, Pesenti S, Parratte S, Argenson JN. Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in Patients Older Than 75 Results in Better Clinical Outcomes and Similar Survivorship Compared to Total Knee Arthroplasty. A Matched Controlled Study. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(12):2668-2671.
10. Chatellard R, Sauleau V, Colmar M, Robert H, Raynaud G, Brilhault J. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(4 Supp):S219-S225.
11. Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y. Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(5):1453-1459.
12. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(3):681-686.
13. McAllister CM. The Role of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty in Providing Maximal Performanceand Satisfaction. J Knee Surg.2008;21(4):286–292.
14. Von Keudell A, Sodha S, Collins J, Minas T, Fitz W, Gomoll AH. Patient satisfaction after primary total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: An age-dependent analysis. The Knee. 2014;21(1):180–184.
15. Data on file with Smith & Nephew. 71281465 REV0 JOURNEY UNI Design Rationale 0710.
16. Robertsson O, Borgquist L, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. Use of unicompartmental instead of tricompartmental prostheses for unicompartmental arthrosis in the knee is a cost-effective alternative. 15,437 primary tricompartmentalprostheses were compared with 10,624 primary medial or lateral unicompartmental prostheses. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70(2):170-175.
17. Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW. Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:1506–1511.
18. Brown NM, Sheth NP, Davis K, et al. Total Knee Arthroplasty Has Higher Postoperative Morbidity Than Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2012:27(8):86-90.
19. Bruni D, Iacono F, Akkawi I, et al. Unicompartmental Knee Replacement: a historical overview. JOINTS 2013;1(2):45-47.
Smith+Nephew is a portfolio medical technology business that exists to restore people’s bodies and their self-belief by using technology to take the limits off living. We call this purpose ‘Life Unlimited’. Our 16,000+ employees deliver this mission every day, making a difference to patients’ lives through the excellence of our product portfolio, and the invention and application of new technologies across our three global franchises of Orthopaedics, Advanced Wound Management and Sports Medicine & ENT. Founded in Hull, UK, in 1856, we now operate in more than 100 countries, and generated annual sales of $4.9 billion in 2018. Smith+Nephew is a constituent of the FTSE100 (LSE:SN,NYSE:SNN). The terms ‘Group’ and ‘Smith+Nephew’ are used to refer to Smith & Nephew plc and its consolidated subsidiaries, unless the context requires otherwise.
This document may contain forward-looking statements that may or may not prove accurate. For example, statements regarding expected revenue growth and trading margins, market trends and our product pipeline are forward-looking statements. Phrases such as “aim”, “plan”, “intend”, “anticipate”, “well-placed”, “believe”, “estimate”, “expect”, “target”, “consider” and similar expressions are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from what is expressed or implied by the statements. For Smith+Nephew, these factors include: economic and financial conditions in the markets we serve, especially those affecting health care providers, payers and customers; price levels for established and innovative medical devices; developments in medical technology; regulatory approvals, reimbursement decisions or other government actions; product defects or recalls or other problems with quality management systems or failure to comply with related regulations; litigation relating to patent or other claims; legal compliance risks and related investigative, remedial or enforcement actions; disruption to our supply chain or operations or those of our suppliers; competition for qualified personnel; strategic actions, including acquisitions and dispositions, our success in performing due diligence, valuing and integrating acquired businesses; disruption that may result from transactions or other changes we make in our business plans or organisation to adapt to market developments; and numerous other matters that affect us or our markets, including those of a political, economic, business, competitive or reputational nature. Please refer to the documents that Smith+Nephew has filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission under the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, including Smith+Nephew’s most recent annual report on Form 20-F, for a discussion of certain of these factors. Any forward-looking statement is based on information available to Smith+Nephew as of the date of the statement. All written or oral forward-looking statements attributable to Smith+Nephew are qualified by this caution. Smith+Nephew does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement to reflect any change in circumstances or in Smith+Nephew’s expectations.
™ Trademark of Smith+Nephew. Certain marks registered US Patent and Trademark Office.