Survival rate of cemented versus cementless tibial component in primary total knee arthroplasty over 5 years of follow-up: comparative study of 109 prostheses
- PMID: 32902376
- PMCID: PMC7480167
- DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2020028
Survival rate of cemented versus cementless tibial component in primary total knee arthroplasty over 5 years of follow-up: comparative study of 109 prostheses
Abstract
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis is the main indication for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is now accepted that cementless implantation of the femoral component provides equivalent results to cemented one, however, the optimal fixation method of the tibial component remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of cemented versus cementless tibial baseplate in primary total knee arthroplasty.
Materials and methods: We carried out a retrospective, monocentric study, including 109 TKA (Zimmer® Natural Knee II ultra-congruent mobile-bearing) implanted between 2004 and 2010 for primary osteoarthritis, comparing 2 groups depending on tibial component fixation method, one cemented (n = 68) and one cementless (n = 41). Clinical (Knee Society Rating System (KSS), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores, range of motion) and radiodiological outcomes were assessed at last follow-up with a minimal follow-up of 5 years.
Results: Mean follow-up were 8.14 [5.31-12.7] and 8.06 [5.22-12.02] years, respectively, in cemented and cementless groups. The tibial component survival rate was 100% [95CI: 91.4-100] in the cementless group and 97.1% [95CI: 89.78-99.42] in the cemented group (2 aseptic loosenings) (p = 0.27). Radiolucent lines were present in 31.7% (n = 13) of the cementless and 44.1% (n = 30) of the cemented baseplates (p = 0.2). The postoperative KSS knee score was higher in the cementless group (99 ± 3 vs. 97 ± 7.5; p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in KSS function, global KSS and HSS scores. Mean range of flexion was 120 ± 10° in the cementless group and 122.5 ± 15° in the cemented group (p = 0.37). No significant differences were found on the radiographic data or on complications.
Conclusion: In this study, the survival rate of the tibial component is not influenced by its fixation method at a mean follow-up of 8 years in osteoarthritis, which confirms the reliability of cementless fixation in primary TKA.
Keywords: Cemented; Cementless; Comparative; Retrospective; Tibia; Total knee arthroplasty.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2020.
Similar articles
-
Results of Cemented vs Cementless Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Using the Same Implant Design.J Arthroplasty. 2018 Apr;33(4):1089-1093. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.048. Epub 2017 Dec 2. J Arthroplasty. 2018. PMID: 29275115
-
Cementless versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty Using the Same Implant Design: A Mean 5-Year Follow-up Study.J Knee Surg. 2024 Aug;37(10):724-729. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1785192. Epub 2024 Mar 29. J Knee Surg. 2024. PMID: 38552644
-
Cemented versus cementless fixation of a tibial component in LCS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon.J Arthroplasty. 2014 Dec;29(12):2397-401. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.006. Epub 2014 Mar 13. J Arthroplasty. 2014. PMID: 24726172 Clinical Trial.
-
Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia vs Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.J Arthroplasty. 2017 Feb;32(2):666-674. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.011. Epub 2016 Sep 28. J Arthroplasty. 2017. PMID: 27776898 Review.
-
No difference between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty in young patients: a review of the evidence.Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Jun;25(6):1749-1756. doi: 10.1007/s00167-017-4519-5. Epub 2017 Mar 22. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017. PMID: 28332044 Review.
Cited by
-
Patient-reported outcomes following cemented versus cementless primary total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching.BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022 Oct 27;23(1):934. doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05899-1. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022. PMID: 36303136 Free PMC article.
-
Global perspective of Innovation in Hip and Knee Replacement in 2020.SICOT J. 2020;6:E1. doi: 10.1051/sicotj/2020043. Epub 2020 Dec 15. SICOT J. 2020. PMID: 33320807 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
A prospective randomised controlled trial of cemented and uncemented tibial baseplates: functional and radiological outcomes.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023 Sep;143(9):5891-5899. doi: 10.1007/s00402-023-04831-z. Epub 2023 Mar 31. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2023. PMID: 37000266 Clinical Trial.
References
-
- Nilsson KG, Kärrholm J, Carlsson L, Dalén T (1999) Hydroxyapatite coating versus cemented fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 14, 9–20. - PubMed
-
- Beaupré LA, al-Yamani M, Huckell JR, Johnston DWC (2007) Hydroxyapatite-coated tibial implants compared with cemented tibial fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized trial of outcomes at five years. J Bone Jt Surg 89, 2204–2211. - PubMed
-
- Dunbar M, Wilson DAJ, Hennigar A, et al. (2009) Fixation of a trabecular metal knee arthroplasty component: a prospective randomized study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91, 1578–1586. - PubMed
-
- Lizaur-Utrilla A, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Lopez-Prats FA (2014) Similar survival between screw cementless and cemented tibial components in young patients with osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22, 1585–1590. - PubMed
-
- Choy W-S, Yang D-S, Lee K-W, et al. (2014) Cemented versus cementless fixation of a tibial component in LCS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. J Arthroplasty 29, 2397–2401. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources