ORTHOPAEDICS

JOURNEY◊ II
Total Knee Arthroplasty Total Knee Arthroplasty

Although total knee replacement has proved to be a successful treatment for improving pain and function, patients still report unmet levels of satisfaction, experience functional limitations and demonstrate increased difficulties doing daily activities. These deficits in patient satisfaction are even higher with more active and demanding activities1,2

The anatomical shape of JOURNEY II is designed to help patients rediscover their normal through a smoother recovery,*3,4 improved function*4-8 and higher patient satisfaction*2,4-6

JOURNEY II TKA Hero 1.png

Normal shapes. Normal position. Normal motion

Reproduction of optimal kinematic patterns during TKA could be instrumental in improving patient satisfaction.11 The solution to providing patients with better overall satisfaction and functionality is to design an implant as close to the normal knee as possible.

JOURNEY II has been shown to restore anatomical shape, position and motion.9,10,12-14 This anatomical restoration can provide superior clinical outcomes that can lead to high patient satisfaction.*3-5,8,15

JOURNEY II TKA Matisse

Product Features

Reference Materials

Formation dédiée aux professionnels de santé

Related Products

Disclaimer

*Compared to non-JOURNEY II knees.

This design rationale is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not intended to serve as medical advice. It is the responsibility of treating physicians to determine and utilise the appropriate products and techniques according to their own clinical judgment for each of their patients.

For detailed product information, including indications for use, contraindications, effects, precautions and warnings, please consult the product’s Instructions for Use (IFU) prior to use.

Citations
  1. Scott CEH, et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92-B(9):1253-1258.
  2. Noble P.C, et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012;470(1):20-32
  3. Mayman DJ, et al. Poster presented at: ISPOR Symposium;19-23 May, 2018; Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  4. Nodzo SR, et al. Techniques in Orthopaedics. 2018;33(1):37-41.
  5. Murakami K, et al. Int Orthop. 2018;42(11):2573-2581.
  6. Di Benedetto P, et al. Acta Biomed 2019; Vol. 90, Supplement 12: 91-97.
  7. Kosse NM, et al. Poster presented at: 2nd World Arthroplasty Congress;19-21 April, 2018; Rome, Italy.
  8. Takubo A, et al. J Knee Surg. 2017;30(7):725-729.
  9. Grieco T, et al. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(2):565-571.
  10. Smith LA, et al. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:1445-1454.
  11. Van Onsem S, et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res (2020) 478:255-263.
  12. Iriuchishima T, et al. J Knee Surg. 2018;31(6):568-572.
  13. Murakami K, et al. J Orthop. 2018;15(2):650-654.
  14. Carpenter RD, et al. Knee. 2009;16(5):332-336.
  15. Noble PC, et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005(431):157-165.
  16. Kaneko T, et al. J Orthop. 2017;14(1):201-206.
  17. Brilhault J, et al. Knee. 2010;17(2):148-151.
  18. Catani F, et al. J Orthop Res. 2009;27(12):1569-1575.
  19. Hyodo K, et al. Arthroplasty Today. 2020;6(3):338-342.
  20. Hada M, et al. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(6):1709-1716.
  21. Smith+Nephew 2012. Internal report. JRN2 KneeSim Analysis Memo.

Title

Text

Explore