Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(01): 047-056
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693453
Original Article

Midterm Comparison of Tibial Fixation between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Substituting Porous Tantalum Total Knee Arthroplasty: Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography Analysis

Takao Kaneko
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
,
Norihiko Kono
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yuta Mochizuki
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
,
Masaru Hada
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
,
Shinya Toyoda
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
,
Hiroyasu Ikegami
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yoshiro Musha
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Toho University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Porous tantalum tibial component is durable with excellent bone ingrowth, higher knee scores, and long-term survivorship. However, to our knowledge, the effect of posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior cruciate-substituting (PS) porous tantalum tibial component has not been reported. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prosthetic bone quality between CR porous tantalum tibial component and PS using three-dimensional multi-detector-row computed tomography (3D-MDCT). Porous twenty-two (22) CR total knee arthroplasties and 22 PS received 3D-MDCT at every 6 months up to 5.5 years postoperatively to assess prosthetic bone quality (bone marrow contents/tissue volumes [BMC/TV, mg/cm3]) underneath the pegs of porous tantalum modular tibial component. Clinical outcomes (Knee Society score [KSS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC), FJS-12, Patella score) were evaluated at a minimum follow-up period of 5.5 years. No statistically significant differences were found in age, gender, body mass index, KSS, and BMC/TV volumes in the proximal tibia between the two groups before total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There were also no significant differences between the CR and PS groups with regard to BMC/TV at every 6 months up to 5.5 years after TKA. At 5.5 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the KSS, WOMAC, forgotten joint score (FJS-12), and Patella score. The present study revealed that the prosthetic bone quality of the CR porous tantalum tibial component and PS were equivalent at every 6 months up to 5.5 years after TKA. This study reflects level II evidence.

Keywords

posterior cruciate-retaining - posterior cruciate-substituting - porous tantalum tibial component - total knee arthroplasty - prosthetic bone quality


Publication History

Received: 12 April 2018

Accepted: 19 May 2019

Article published online:
09 July 2019

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Losina E, Walensky RP, Kessler CL. et al. Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169 (12) 1113-1121 , discussion 1121–1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Murray DW, MacLennan GS, Breeman S. et al; KAT group. A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the knee arthroplasty trial (KAT). Health Technol Assess 2014; 18 (19) 1-235 , vii–viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Liddle AD, Pegg EC, Pandit H. Knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Maturitas 2013; 75 (02) 131-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Clarke HD, Cushner FD. Monoblock tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. Tech Knee Surg 2008; 7 (02) 115-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, Scuderi GR, Font-Rodriguez D. Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79 (04) 575-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Forster MC. Survival analysis of primary cemented total knee arthroplasty: which designs last?. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (03) 265-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ghalayini SR, Helm AT, McLauchlan GJ. Minimum 6year results of an uncemented trabecular metal tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2012; 19 (06) 872-874
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gill GS, Joshi AB. Long-term results of kinematic condylar knee replacement. An analysis of 404 knees. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83 (03) 355-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Laskin RS. The genesis total knee prosthesis: a 10-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388) 95-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lombardi Jr AV, Berasi CC, Berend KR. Evolution of tibial fixation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (04) (Suppl. 01) 25-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pavone V, Boettner F, Fickert S, Sculco TP. Total condylar knee arthroplasty: a long-term followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388) 18-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rodriguez JA, Bhende H, Ranawat CS. Total condylar knee replacement: a 20-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388) 10-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Abu-Rajab RB, Watson WS, Walker B, Roberts J, Gallacher SJ, Meek RM. Peri-prosthetic bone mineral density after total knee arthroplasty. Cemented versus cementless fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (05) 606-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Soininvaara TA, Miettinen HJ, Jurvelin JS, Suomalainen OT, Alhava EM, Kröger HP. Periprosthetic tibial bone mineral density changes after total knee arthroplasty: one-year follow-up study of 69 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 2004; 75 (05) 600-605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Levine B, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ. Applications of porous tantalum in total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2006; 14 (12) 646-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (05) 907-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Ikebuchi M, Iwaki H, Inori F, Nakamura H. Porous tantalum tibial component prevents periprosthetic loss of bone mineral density after total knee arthroplasty for five years-a matched cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (10) 1760-1764
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dunbar MJ, Wilson DA, Hennigar AW, Amirault JD, Gross M, Reardon GP. Fixation of a trabecular metal knee arthroplasty component. A prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (07) 1578-1586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Levine BR, Sporer S, Poggie RA, Della Valle CJ, Jacobs JJ. Experimental and clinical performance of porous tantalum in orthopedic surgery. Biomaterials 2006; 27 (27) 4671-4681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Niemeläinen M, Skyttä ET, Remes V, Mäkelä K, Eskelinen A. Total knee arthroplasty with an uncemented trabecular metal tibial component: a registry-based analysis. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (01) 57-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wilson DA, Richardson G, Hennigar AW, Dunbar MJ. Continued stabilization of trabecular metal tibial monoblock total knee arthroplasty components at 5 years-measured with radiostereometric analysis. Acta Orthop 2012; 83 (01) 36-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pulido L, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG. et al. The Mark Coventry Award: trabecular metal tibial components were durable and reliable in primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (01) 34-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pagenstert G. CORR Insights ®: trabecular metal in total knee arthroplasty associated with higher knee scores: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (11) 3554-3555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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
  • 25 Swanik CB, Lephart SM, Rubash HE. Proprioception, kinesthesia, and balance after total knee arthroplasty with cruciate-retaining and posterior stabilized prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (02) 328-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Simmons S, Lephart S, Rubash H, Borsa P, Barrack RL. Proprioception following total knee arthroplasty with and without the posterior cruciate ligament. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11 (07) 763-768
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Straw R, Kulkarni S, Attfield S, Wilton TJ. Posterior cruciate ligament at total knee replacement. Essential, beneficial or a hindrance?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85 (05) 671-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Conditt MA, Noble PC, Bertolusso R, Woody J, Parsley BS. The PCL significantly affects the functional outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (07) (Suppl. 02) 107-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Siebel T, Käfer W. In vitro investigation of knee joint kinematics following cruciate retaining versus cruciate sacrificing total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 2003; 69 (05) 433-440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Title CI, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS. Posterior cruciate-sacrificing versus posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty: a study of clinical and functional outcomes in matched patients. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16 (04) 409-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Cope MR, O'Brien BS, Nanu AM. The influence of the posterior cruciate ligament in the maintenance of joint line in primary total knee arthroplasty: a radiologic study. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (02) 206-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Benhamou CL. Effects of osteoporosis medications on bone quality. Joint Bone Spine 2007; 74 (01) 39-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ito M, Ikeda K, Nishiguchi M. et al. Multi-detector row CT imaging of vertebral microstructure for evaluation of fracture risk. J Bone Miner Res 2005; 20 (10) 1828-1836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ito M. Recent progress in bone imaging for osteoporosis research. J Bone Miner Metab 2011; 29 (02) 131-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Jiang J, Kang X, Lin Q. et al. Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation compared with conventional instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (04) e305-e313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Yamamura K, Minoda Y, Mizokawa S. et al. Novel alignment measurement technique for total knee arthroplasty using patient specific instrumentation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2017; 137 (03) 401-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kaneko T, Otani T, Kono N. et al. Weekly injection of teriparatide for bone ingrowth after cementless total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2016; 24 (01) 16-21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kaneko T, Kono N, Mochizuki Y, Ikegami H, Musha Y. Is there a relationship between the load distribution on the tibial plateau and hip knee ankle angle after TKA?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138 (04) 543-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN. The new knee society knee scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 3-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Feller JA, Bartlett RJ, Lang DM. Patellar resurfacing versus retention in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78 (02) 226-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (03) 430.el-436.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Li MG, Nilsson KG. Changes in bone mineral density at the proximal tibia after total knee arthroplasty: a 2-year follow-up of 28 knees using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. J Orthop Res 2000; 18 (01) 40-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Petersen MM, Nielsen PT, Lauritzen JB, Lund B. Changes in bone mineral density of the proximal tibia after uncemented total knee arthroplasty. A 3-year follow-up of 25 knees. Acta Orthop Scand 1995; 66 (06) 513-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Petersen MM, Gehrchen PM, Ostgaard SE, Nielsen PK, Lund B. Effect of hydroxyapatite-coated tibial components on changes in bone mineral density of the proximal tibia after uncemented total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (04) 516-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Saari T, Uvehammer J, Carlsson L, Regnér L, Kärrholm J. Joint area constraint had no influence on bone loss in proximal tibia 5 years after total knee replacement. J Orthop Res 2007; 25 (06) 798-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Inoue K, Hamano T, Nango N. et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography is useful to evaluate the therapeutic effects of bisphosphonates in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Metab 2014; 32 (03) 271-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Wang J, Ishimoto T, Nakano T. Unloading-induced degradation of the anisotropic arrangement of collagen/apatite in rat femurs. Calcif Tissue Int 2017; 100 (01) 87-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Noyama Y, Nakano T, Ishimoto T, Sakai T, Yoshikawa H. Design and optimization of the oriented groove on the hip implant surface to promote bone microstructure integrity. Bone 2013; 52 (02) 659-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Kuroshima S, Nakano T, Ishimoto T. et al. Optimally oriented grooves on dental implants improve bone quality around implants under repetitive mechanical loading. Acta Biomater 2017; 48: 433-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Sato J, Todoroki K, Toyabe SI. Posterior cruciate ligament retention or substitution during total knee arthroplasty does not affect long-term bone mineral density or quality. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (04) 1148-1152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Bercik MJ, Joshi A, Parvizi J. Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (03) 439-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Martin JR, Watts CD, Levy DL, Kim RH. Medial tibial stress shielding: A limitation of cobalt chromium tibial baseplates. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (02) 558-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Zhang QH, Cossey A, Tong J. Stress shielding in periprosthetic bone following a total knee replacement: Effects of implant material, design and alignment. Med Eng Phys 2016; 38 (12) 1481-1488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 O'Keefe TJ, Winter S, Lewallen DG, Robertson DD, Poggie RA. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of a monoblock tibial component. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25 (05) 785-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Dunbar MJ, Wilson DA, Hennigar AW, Amirault JD, Gross M, Reardon GP. Fixation of a trabecular metal knee arthroplasty component. A prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (07) 1578-1586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Wolff J. Das Gaetz der Transformation, Transformation der Knochen. 1982. Berlin: Hirschwald;
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Hino K, Ishimaru M, Iseki Y, Watanabe S, Onishi Y, Miura H. Mid-flexion laxity is greater after posterior-stabilised total knee replacement than with cruciate-retaining procedures: A computer navigation study. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (04) 493-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar