Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(03): 270-278
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1678525
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Survivorship and Functional Outcomes of Cementless versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

Jared M. Newman
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
,
Nipun Sodhi
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Joanne C. Dekis
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York
,
Anton Khlopas
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Nicolas S. Piuzzi
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Assem A. Sultan
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Jay M. Levin
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Michael A. Mont
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

13 November 2017

16 December 2018

Publication Date:
08 February 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the evidence supporting the use of cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Specifically, we evaluated (1) all-cause survivorship, (2) aseptic survivorship, and (3) functional outcomes (Knee Society Scores [KSS], Oxford Knee Scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] scores, and ranges of motion [ROMs]). A literature search was performed for studies that evaluated cementless versus cemented TKAs published between 2000 and 2017. Selected studies included three randomized controlled trials, three retrospective observational studies, and one prospective observational study that met the following criteria: (1) primary TKAs, (2) compared cementless and cemented TKAs, (3) implant survivorship that described the causes of failure, and (4) at least one functional outcome. To compare the two cohorts, pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to calculate tibial and femoral implant survivorship, and pooled mean differences (MD) and 95% CI calculated the functional scores and ROMs. Based on pooled data from the few number of studies, cementless TKAs had a better all-cause survivorship (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15–0.92) and tended to have a better aseptic survivorship (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17–1.14). However, this is likely due to the 83.3% weight of the single cementless study potentially influencing the analysis. There were no differences in terms of KSS knee (MD = 1.03; 95% CI, −1.13–3.20) or function scores (MD = 5.36; 95% CI, –3.75–14.51), Oxford knee scores (MD = 0.36; 95% CI, –3.84–4.56), or WOMAC scores (MD = 0.62; 95% CI, –0.87–2.11). Moreover, there was no difference in ROMs (MD = 1.47; 95% CI, –0.11–3.05). Cementless TKA had a better all-cause survivorship when compared with cemented fixation, and similar functional outcomes were demonstrated. However, these findings are based on only a few number of studies (n = 7). Therefore, additional prospective, randomized control trials need to be performed to best compare cementless versus cemented outcomes.

Keywords

cementless - total knee arthroplasty - meta-analysis - survivorship - functional outcomes
 

  • References

  • 1 Nam D, Kopinski JE, Meyer Z, Rames RD, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Perioperative and early postoperative comparison of a modern cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty of the same design. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (07) 2151-2155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Lim H-M, Park E-S. 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
  • 3 Meftah M, White PB, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Long-term results of total knee arthroplasty in young and active patients with posterior stabilized design. Knee 2016; 23 (02) 318-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ranawat CS, Flynn Jr WF, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ. Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; (286) 94-102
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Chong DYR, Hansen UN, van der Venne R, Verdonschot N, Amis AA. The influence of tibial component fixation techniques on resorption of supporting bone stock after total knee replacement. J Biomech 2011; 44 (05) 948-954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 O'Rourke MR, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Osteolysis associated with a cemented modular posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee design: five to eight-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (08) 1362-1371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Harwin SF, Patel NK, Chughtai M. , et al. Outcomes of newer generation cementless total knee arthroplasty: beaded periapatite-coated vs highly porous titanium-coated implants. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (07) 2156-2160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bush JL, Wilson JB, Vail TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 186-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Management of bone loss in revision TKA: it's a changing world. Orthopedics 2010; 33 (09) 662
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Naudie DD, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA, Rorabeck CH. Wear and osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15 (01) 53-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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
  • 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 Harwin SF, Elmallah RK, Jauregui JJ, Cherian JJ, Mont MA. Outcomes of a newer-generation cementless total knee arthroplasty design. Orthopedics 2015; 38 (10) 620-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Brown TE, Harper BL, Bjorgul K. Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36 (05) 380-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Dalury DF. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: current concepts review. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (07) 867-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Meneghini RM, Hanssen AD. Cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty: past, present, and future. J Knee Surg 2008; 21 (04) 307-314
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Berger RA, Lyon JH, Jacobs JJ. , et al. Problems with cementless total knee arthroplasty at 11 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 196-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kim YH, Oh JH, Oh SH. Osteolysis around cementless porous-coated anatomic knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77 (02) 236-241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Berry DJ, Wold LE, Rand JA. Extensive osteolysis around an aseptic, stable, uncemented total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1993; (293) 204-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Nafei A, Nielsen S, Kristensen O, Hvid I. The press-fit Kinemax knee arthroplasty. High failure rate of non-cemented implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74 (02) 243-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 De Martino I, D'Apolito R, Sculco PK, Poultsides LA, Gasparini G. Total knee arthroplasty using cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component: a minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (10) 2193-2198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cross MJ, Parish EN. A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: prospective analysis of 1000 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (08) 1073-1076
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8 (05) 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Fricka KB, Sritulanondha S, McAsey CJ. To cement or not? Two-year results of a prospective, randomized study comparing cemented vs. cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA). J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl): 55-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Park J-W, Kim Y-H. Simultaneous cemented and cementless total knee replacement in the same patients: a prospective comparison of long-term outcomes using an identical design of NexGen prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (11) 1479-1486
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Furlan AD, Malmivaara A, Chou R. , et al; Editorial Board of the Cochrane Back, Neck Group. 2015 Updated method guideline for systematic reviews in the Cochrane back and neck group. Spine 2015; 40 (21) 1660-1673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zhang P, He J, Fang Y, Chen P, Liang Y, Wang J. Efficacy and safety of intravenous tranexamic acid administration in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery for hemostasis: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96 (21) e6940
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73 (09) 712-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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
  • 30 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (01) 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15 (12) 1833-1840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Dedeyne L, Deschodt M, Verschueren S, Tournoy J, Gielen E. Effects of multi-domain interventions in (pre)frail elderly on frailty, functional, and cognitive status: a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging 2017; 12: 873-896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 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
  • 34 Kamath AF, Lee G-C, 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
  • 35 Choy W-S, Yang D-S, Lee K-W, Lee S-K, Kim K-J, Chang S-H. Cemented versus cementless fixation of a tibial component in LCS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12) 2397-2401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schüttrumpf JP, Balcarek P, Sehmisch S. , et al. Navigated cementless total knee arthroplasty - medium-term clinical and radiological results. Open Orthop J 2012; 6: 160-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Nakama GY, Peccin MS, Almeida GJM, Lira Neto OdeA, Queiroz AA, Navarro RD. Cemented, cementless or hybrid fixation options in total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and other non-traumatic diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 10: CD006193
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Crook PD, Owen JR, Hess SR, Al-Humadi SM, Wayne JS, Jiranek WA. Initial stability of cemented vs cementless tibial components under cyclic load. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (08) 2556-2562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Franceschetti E, Torre G, Palumbo A. , et al. No difference between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty in young patients: a review of the evidence. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (06) 1749-1756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar