Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Apr 4;107(12):1362-1370.
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.24.01226.

Ratio of Weight-to-Tibial Baseplate Surface Area in Predicting Aseptic Tibial Loosening in TKA and the Protective Effect of Tibial Stem Extensions

Nathan A Huebschmann  1 , Jonathan L Katzman, Joseph X Robin, Morteza Meftah, Joshua C Rozell, Ran Schwarzkopf
Affiliations

Ratio of Weight-to-Tibial Baseplate Surface Area in Predicting Aseptic Tibial Loosening in TKA and the Protective Effect of Tibial Stem Extensions

Nathan A Huebschmann et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am. .

Abstract

Background: High body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for tibial baseplate loosening following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but may not adequately correlate with stresses at the tibial baseplate. In this study, we aimed to determine an optimal cutoff of a weight-to-tibial baseplate surface-area ratio (weight/SA) for predicting aseptic tibial baseplate loosening. We further examined whether tibial stem extensions have a protective effect.

Methods: We identified 16,368 patients who underwent primary, elective TKA from June 2011 to March 2023. Patient demographics, including age, sex, and race, implants used, and revision surgeries were extracted. Revisions were manually reviewed to confirm revision indications. The exact surface areas of tibial baseplates were obtained from manufacturers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of patients without tibial stem extensions was utilized to examine the utility of BMI and weight/SA for predicting aseptic tibial baseplate loosening. Optimal weight/SA and BMI cutoffs for predicting loosening were determined. The effect of tibial stem extensions on loosening was then examined in patients at or above (n = 7,698; 3.7% with stem extension) and below (n = 8,670; 1.3% with stem extension) the determined weight/SA cutoff.

Results: There were 16,368 patients in the final sample (median age, 67 years; 68.9% female; 54.1% White). Weight/SA (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.653; p < 0.001) was a better predictor of aseptic tibial baseplate loosening requiring revision compared with patient BMI (AUC = 0.624; p < 0.001). The optimal weight/SA cutoff for predicting loosening was 0.0162 kg/mm 2 (sensitivity = 0.747, specificity = 0.537). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that being at or above the weight/SA cutoff (odds ratio [OR] = 3.17; p < 0.001) but not the BMI cutoff (p = 0.911) was a significant predictor of revision for tibial baseplate loosening in patients without stem extensions. No cases of revision for aseptic tibial baseplate loosening in patients with stem extensions occurred either at or above or below the cutoff. The rate of revision for aseptic tibial baseplate loosening in patients without stem extensions was 0.3% for patients below and 1.0% for patients at or above the weight/SA cutoff.

Conclusions: The ratio of weight-to-tibial baseplate surface area was more predictive of revision for aseptic tibial baseplate loosening following TKA compared with BMI alone. For patients with obesity with small tibial baseplate sizes, utilization of a tibial stem extension may protect against tibial loosening.

Level of evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: No external funding was received for this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/I542 ).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected Volume of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Sep 5;100(17):1455-60.
    1. Tarazi JM, Chen Z, Scuderi GR, Mont MA. The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2021 Nov;34(13):1396-401.
    1. Postler A, Lützner C, Beyer F, Tille E, Lützner J. Analysis of Total Knee Arthroplasty revision causes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Feb 14;19(1):55.
    1. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. American Joint Replacement Registry: Download the AJRR 2021 Annual Report. Accessed 2025 March 13. https://connect.registryapps.net/2021-ajrr-annual-report
    1. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, Tokarski AT, Parvizi J. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty. 2014 Sep;29(9):1774-8.