Cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty: Down the boulevard of broken dreams - Opposes
In this study we present our experience with four generations of uncemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from Smith & Nephew: Tricon M, Tricon LS, Tricon II and Profix, focusing on the failure rates correlating with each design change. Beginning in 1984, 380 Tricon M, 435 Tricon LS, 305 Tricon 2 and 588 Profix were implanted by the senior author. The rate of revision for loosening was 1.1% for the Tricon M, 1.1% for the Tricon LS, 0.5% for the Tricon 2 with a HA coated tibial component, and 1.3% for the Profix TKA. No loosening of the femoral component was seen with the Tricon M, Tricon LS or Tricon 2, with no loosening seen of the tibial component with the Profix TKA. Regarding revision for wear, the incidence was 13.1% for the Tricon M, 6.6% for the Tricon LS, 2.3% for the Tricon 2, and 0% for the Profix. These results demonstrate that improvements in the design of uncemented components, including increased polyethylene thickness, improved polyethylene quality, and the introduction of hydroxyapatite coating, has improved the outcomes of uncemented TKA over time.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A cementless femoral component may allow for a smaller surgical incision when a minimally invasive approach is used during primary total knee arthroplasty. Fixation by cement is the gold standard for total knee arthroplasty. The results of cementless total knee arthroplasty are mixed. Cementless femoral components have done well. Although some tibial components have performed well at long-term follow-up, others have been plagued by high rates of loosening and revision. The question remains whether the results of hybrid total knee arthroplasty, consisting of an uncemented femoral component and a cemented tibial component, will equal those of total knee replacement fixed with cement at long-term follow-up. The authors reviewed 148 hybrid total knee arthroplasties performed by a single surgeon between 1993 and 1995. At a mean follow-up of 14 years (range, 10-16) 5 knees (4%) had undergone revision of both the femoral and tibial components. Only 1 knee required revision for aseptic loosening. Two knees were revised for sepsis; 1 knee had been revised for fracture and 1 for instability. No additional femoral or tibial components were loose by radiographic criteria. Mild focal femoral osteolysis was identified in 3 knees (2%), and minor tibial osteolysis was present in 2 knees (1%). The rate of survivorship with revision for aseptic loosening as the end point was 99% (95% confidence interval, 0.97-100) at 16 years for both the femoral and tibial components. In this series, hybrid total knee arthroplasty showed excellent fixation at 16 years.
Orthopedics 11/2014; 37(11):e975-7. DOI:10.3928/01477447-20141023-53 · 0.96 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing primary cementless total knee replacement (TKR) using porous tantalum performed by a group of surgical trainees. Clinical and radiological follow-up involved 79 females and 26 males encompassing 115 knees. The mean age was 66.9 years (36 to 85). Mean follow-up was 7 years (2 to 11). Tibial and patellar components were porous tantalum monoblock implants, and femoral components were posterior stabilised (PS) in design with cobalt-chromium fibre mesh. Radiological assessments were made for implant positioning, alignment, radiolucencies, lysis, and loosening. There was 95.7% survival of implants. There was no radiological evidence of loosening and no osteolysis found. No revisions were performed for aseptic loosening. Average tibial component alignment was 1.4° of varus (4°of valgus to 9° varus), and 6.2° (3° anterior to 15° posterior) of posterior slope. Mean femoral component alignment was 6.6° (1° to 11°) of valgus. Mean tibiofemoral alignment was 5.6° of valgus (7° varus to 16° valgus). Patellar tilt was a mean of 2.4° lateral (5° medial to 28° lateral). Patient satisfaction with improvement in pain was 91%. Cementless TKR incorporating porous tantalum yielded good clinical and radiological outcomes at a mean of follow-up of seven-years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):87-92.
Bone and Joint Journal 11/2014; 96-B(11 Supple A):87-92. DOI:10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34327 · 1.96 Impact Factor
Available from: Panagiotis Korovessis
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: While cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is currently the gold standard for primary osteoarthritis, cementless component fixation has achieved increasingly comparable outcomes due to improvements in both implant designs and surgical technique. Long-term outcomes and survivorship with the TC-Plus cementless, titanium plasma-coated TKA system without patella resurfacing were evaluated.
A homogenous population of 171 consecutive patients who received 206 primary TC-Plus TKAs without patella resurfacing over a 19-year period was retrospectively reviewed. Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSCRS) scores were obtained, and radiographic evaluation was performed after a mean follow-up of 13.2 ± 8.4 years. Survivorship analysis was made with endpoints revision for any reason and aseptic loss of biological fixation.
One hundred and thirty-six TKAs implanted in 113 patients were available for analysis. Mean KSCRS clinical and functional scores improved significantly versus preoperative values. No radiological loss of biological fixation of femoral and tibial components was observed. Survival with aseptic revision of any component as the endpoint was 95.7 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 91.7-97.9 %) and 93.6 % (95 % CI 87.8-96.6 %) at 10 and 15 years, respectively.
Titanium plasma-coated cementless TKA without patella resurfacing showed excellent long-term results, with high 10- and 15-year component survival rates. The clinical and radiological results were comparable to those of other cementless TKAs, providing further evidence for the non-cemented resurfacing of the osteoarthritic knee.
Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 09/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00167-015-3769-3 · 3.05 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.