Background Smart implant technologies capable of continuously collecting objective recovery data have recently been introduced in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, patient perceptions and willingness to adopt implant-integrated monitoring remain poorly characterized. This study evaluated attitudes toward a commercially available smart knee implant among patients scheduled for primary TKA. Methods In this cross-sectional survey study, patients with knee osteoarthritis scheduled for primary TKA at a single academic center were shown a standardized 3-minute educational video describing the Zimmer Biomet Persona IQ smart knee implant. Immediately following, patients completed a survey assessing willingness to receive a smart implant, perceived benefits, concerns, and preference compared with a removable wearable monitoring device. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses. Results A total of 179 patients completed the survey (mean age 66.4 ± 9.3 years; 56.4% female). Of respondents, 71.5% indicated willingness to receive a smart knee implant. The most common concerns were potential differences in performance compared with standard implants (51.7%), higher cost to the patient (38.2%), and higher cost to insurance (34.1%). The most frequently perceived benefit was enhanced information for both patient and surgeon regarding recovery (83.1%). When comparing monitoring modalities, 44.8% preferred a smart implant, 38.7% preferred a removable wearable device, and 16.6% preferred neither. Conclusions After standardized education regarding a commercially available smart knee implant, most patients scheduled for TKA expressed willingness to adopt implant-integrated monitoring. While patients identified perceived benefits, concerns regarding performance and cost remain. These findings may inform shared decision-making as smart implant technologies are incorporated into arthroplasty practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ragsdale et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: