Newman Jared M, Sodhi Nipun, Dekis Joanne C, Khlopas Anton, Piuzzi Nicolas S, Sultan Assem A, Levin Jay M, Mont Michael A
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York.
J Knee Surg. 2020 Mar;33(3):270-278. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1678525. Epub 2019 Feb 8.
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 ( = 7). Therefore, additional prospective, randomized control trials need to be performed to best compare cementless versus cemented outcomes.
本荟萃分析的目的是评估支持使用非骨水泥型与骨水泥型全膝关节置换术(TKA)的证据。具体而言,我们评估了:(1)全因生存率;(2)无菌生存率;(3)功能结局(膝关节协会评分[KSS]、牛津膝关节评分、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数[WOMAC]评分以及活动范围[ROM])。对2000年至2017年间发表的评估非骨水泥型与骨水泥型TKA的研究进行了文献检索。入选的研究包括三项随机对照试验、三项回顾性观察性研究和一项前瞻性观察性研究,这些研究符合以下标准:(1)初次TKA;(2)比较非骨水泥型与骨水泥型TKA;(3)描述失败原因的植入物生存率;(4)至少一项功能结局。为比较这两个队列,采用合并比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(95%CI)计算胫骨和股骨植入物的生存率,采用合并平均差(MD)和95%CI计算功能评分和ROM。基于少数研究的汇总数据,非骨水泥型TKA具有更好的全因生存率(OR = 0.37;95%CI,0.15 - 0.92),并且倾向于具有更好的无菌生存率(OR = 0.44;95%CI,0.17 - 1.14)。然而,这可能是由于单项非骨水泥型研究占83.3%的权重可能影响了分析。在KSS膝关节评分(MD = 1.03;95%CI,-1.13 - 3.20)或功能评分(MD = 5.36;95%CI,-3.75 - 14.51)、牛津膝关节评分(MD = 0.36;95%CI,-3.84 - 4.56)或WOMAC评分(MD = 0.62;95%CI,-0.87 - 2.11)方面没有差异。此外,ROM也没有差异(MD = 1.47;95%CI,-0.11 - 3.05)。与骨水泥固定相比,非骨水泥型TKA具有更好的全因生存率,并且显示出相似的功能结局。然而,这些发现仅基于少数研究(n = 7)。因此,需要进行更多的前瞻性随机对照试验,以更好地比较非骨水泥型与骨水泥型的结局。