Smith+Nephew Launches New JOURNEY™ II Unicompartmental Knee System

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Smith+Nephew today announces the launch of its new JOURNEY II Unicompartmental Knee (UK) System. Built on the heritage of one of the most clinically successful partial knees,1,2 and paired with proprietary OXINIUM™ Technology, JOURNEY II UK is designed to help patients rediscover their normal life.

JOURNEY™ II Unicompartmental Knee System provides a highly personalized approach to partial knee arthroplasty, via a modular, two-tray configuration, which may drive value and cost reduction in sterilization costs through a reduced OR footprint3-4 and instrumentation that can be customized to match a familiar surgical flow.

Through the introduction of a lateral-specific tibia baseplate and an increased size range for femoral components and medial tibia baseplates, the JOURNEY II UK System provides a unique opportunity to optimize bone coverage in both the medial and lateral compartments of the knee.

“The updated instrumentation presented by the JOURNEY II Unicompartmental Knee System, paired with the increased range in implant sizes and a lateral specific baseplate, makes it easy to reproducibly perform well-balanced medial and lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties,” said Dr. Tad Gerlinger, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL.

Unicompartmental procedures may result in a reduction of cost to payers, via decreased implant and procedure costs, compared to total knee arthroplasty.5-6 When paired with Smith+Nephew’s innovative enabling technologies, the JOURNEY II UK’s two-tray footprint is reduced and may offer healthcare providers increased value in a comprehensive solution to unicompartmental knee procedures.

“Our JOURNEY II Unicompartmental Knee System brings a much-needed solution to the partial knee space. Our customers want it because partial knees enable faster recovery6-8 and improved functionality5,7-11 for their patients,” said Skip Kiil, President of Orthopaedics at Smith+Nephew. “Adding to these benefits, JOURNEY II UK is also designed to deliver high patient satisfaction.” 12-13

Smith+Nephew’s JOURNEY II UK System is now available in North America and Europe for partial knee applications.


References

*Evidence referenced in this release used ZUK data and is not specific to JOURNEY II UK.

  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. Shankar S, Tetreault MW, Jegier BJ, Andersson GB, Della Valle CJ. A cost comparison of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. The Knee. 2016; 23 (6): 1016 – 1019
  4. Capra R, Bini SA, Bowden DE, et al. Implementing a perioperative efficiency initiative for orthopedic surgery instrumentation at an academic center: A comparative before-and-after study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(7):e14338. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000014338
  5. Willis-Owen CA, Trust K, Alsop H, et al. Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: An analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy. The Knee. 2009; 16 (6):473-478
  6. Jennings, JM, Kleeman-Forsthuber LT, Bolognesi MP. Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty of the Knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27(5):166-76.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  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. 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.
  12. Geller JA, Yoon RS, McKean J, Macaulay W. Does a high-flexion design affect early outcome of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty?: clinical comparison at 2 years. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1468–1474.
  13. Biswas D, Van Thiel GS, Wetters NG, Pack BJ, Berger RA, Della Valle CJ. Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients less than 55 years old: minimum of two years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(1):101–105.
Medical Device News Magazinehttps://infomeddnews.com
Medical Device News Magazine is a division of PTM Healthcare Marketing, Inc.

WE WELCOME YOUR VIEWS

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here