Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1785192
Original Article

Cementless versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty Using the Same Implant Design: A Mean 5-Year Follow-up Study

Adam J. Miller
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Arun C. Nadar
2   University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Charles M. Granade
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Langan S. Smith
3   UofL Health, ULP Orthopedics, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Madhusudhan R. Yakkanti
4   Louisville Orthopaedic Clinic, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Arthur L. Malkani
5   University of Louisville Adult Reconstruction Program, Louisville, Kentucky
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by Stryker.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Cementless implant use continues to increase primarily due to increased numbers of younger and obese patients opting for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Given the increased use of cementless implants, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm clinical performance of cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate compared with its cemented counterpart of the same system. We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 400 patients undergoing primary TKA that included 200 patients with cementless components matched for age and body mass index (BMI) to 200 patients with cemented implants of the same implant design with a 5-year follow-up. We evaluated clinical results, complications, revisions, and overall survivorship between the cohorts. Statistical analysis was performed using student t-test and chi-square analysis. There was no statistical difference in age (64.3 vs. 64.3 p = 0.81), BMI (34 vs. 33.1 p = 0.19), preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) function (41 vs. 32.3 p = 0.22), and preoperative KSS knee score (39.2 vs. 38.3 p = 0.54) between the cementless and cemented cohorts, respectively. The cementless group had seven revisions, while the cemented group had nine revisions (p = 0.609). The cementless group had one revision due to aseptic loosening versus five in the cemented group (p = 0.09). Postoperative 5-year KSS knee scores were 92.84 versus 91.75 (p = 0.386) and function scores were 81.81 versus 69.65 (p = 0.00004) in the cementless and cemented groups, respectively. The cementless group had survivorship of 96.5% for all-cause revision compared with 95.5% in the cemented group at 5-year follow-up (p = 0.60). Cementless TKA using a highly porous tibial baseplate showed excellent midterm results with one case of aseptic loosening at 5-year follow-up and with similar Knee Society outcome scores and survivorship compared with the cemented group. Cementless TKA demonstrated noninferiority to cemented TKA and could be used as an alternative mode of fixation in patients opting for primary TKA. Additional long-term follow-up is needed to determine if cementless TKA can demonstrate improved survivorship over cemented TKA.

Keywords

primary total knee arthroplasty - cementless TKA - cemented TKA - outcomes - complications - aseptic loosening


Publication History

Received: 23 May 2023

Accepted: 01 March 2024

Article published online:
29 March 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Miller AJ, Stimac JD, Smith LS, Feher AW, Yakkanti MR, Malkani AL. Results of cemented vs cementless primary total knee arthroplasty using the same implant design. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (04) 1089-1093
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gold PA, Garbarino L, Sodhi N, Barrack R, Springer BD, Mont MA. The case for cementless total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 388-396
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dalury DF. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: current concepts review. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-b (07) 867-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Khan M, Osman K, Green G, Haddad FS. The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty: avoiding your next revision. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (1, Suppl A): 105-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Harrysson OL, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF. Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (421) 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Abdel MP, Bonadurer III GF, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD. Increased aseptic tibial failures in patients with a BMI ≥35 and well-aligned total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2181-2184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bagsby DT, Issa K, Smith LS. et al. Cemented vs cementless total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (08) 1727-1731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sinicrope BJ, Feher AW, Bhimani SJ. et al. Increased survivorship of cementless versus cemented TKA in the morbidly obese. A minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (02) 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020-2040 using the national inpatient sample. J Rheumatol 2019; 46 (09) 1134-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2606-2612
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kamath AF, Lee GC, Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Garino JP, Israelite CL. Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (08) 1390-1395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kwong LM, Nielsen ES, Ruiz DR, Hsu AH, Dines MD, Mellano CM. Cementless total knee replacement fixation: a contemporary durable solution–affirms. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (11, Supple A): 87-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cherian JJ, Banerjee S, Kapadia BH, Jauregui JJ, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Knee Surg 2014; 27 (03) 193-197
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Haeberle HS, Salem HS, Ehiorobo JO, Sodhi N, Mont MA. Newer generation of cementless total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Surg Technol Int 2020; 36: 351-359
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Newman JM, Sodhi N, Khlopas A. et al. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of the literature. Orthopedics 2018; 41 (05) 263-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chen C, Li R. Cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasty in young patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 2019; 14 (01) 262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Yang J, Heckmann ND, Nahhas CR. et al. Early outcomes of a modern cemented total knee arthroplasty: is tibial loosening a concern?. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B (6, Supple A): 51-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bhimji S, Meneghini RM. Micromotion of cementless tibial baseplates: keels with adjuvant pegs offer more stability than pegs alone. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (07) 1503-1506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nam D, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Mahoney OM, Dunbar MJ, Barrack RL. Mid-term performance of the first mass-produced three-dimensional printed cementless tibia in the United States as reported in the American Joint Replacement Registry. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (01) 85-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fricka KB, Yep PJ, Donnelly PC. et al. Timing and factors associated with revision for infection after primary total knee arthroplasty based on American Joint Replacement Registry data. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (6S): S308-S313 313.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tarazi JM, Salem HS, Ehiorobo JO, Sodhi N, Mont MA, Harwin SF. Cementless Tritanium baseplate total knee arthroplasty: survivorship and outcomes at 5-year minimum follow-up. J Knee Surg 2020; 33 (09) 862-865
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Unger AS, Duggan JP. Midterm results of a porous tantalum monoblock tibia component clinical and radiographic results of 108 knees. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (06) 855-860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 King BA, Miller AJ, Nadar AC. et al Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty Using a Highly Porous Tibial Baseplate in Morbidly Obese Patients: Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up. J Knee Surg 2023; 36 (09) 995-1000
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Restrepo S, Smith EB, Hozack WJ. Excellent mid-term follow-up for a new 3D-printed cementless total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B (6 Supple A): 32-37
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gerscovich D, Schwing C, Unger A. Long-term results of a porous tantalum monoblock tibia component: clinical and radiographic results at follow-up of 10 years. Arthroplast Today 2017; 3 (03) 192-196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kim Y, Park J, Lim H, Park E. Cementless and cemented total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than fifty five years. Which is better?. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (02) 297-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar