Hybrid fixation of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty shows equivalent short-term implant survivorship and clinical scores compared to standard fixation techniques.

INTRODUCTION

There is a paucity of data regarding hybrid-fixated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and no study directly compared all three available fixation techniques (cementless, cemented, and hybrid). The hypothesis was that hybrid fixation might have a lower incidence of radiolucent lines (RLL) than cemented UKA, with equivalent outcomes to uncemented UKA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 104 UKA with a minimal follow-up of 1 year were retrospectively included, of which 40 were cemented, 41 cementless, and 23 hybrid prostheses. The functional outcomes scores included the Oxford Knee (OKS), Subjective Knee (SKS), and Forgotten Joint scores (FJS). RLLs, subsidence, and component positioning were assessed on radiographs.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 28 months, the survival rate was 95% for cemented UKA and 100% for the cementless and hybrid UKA (n.s.), respectively. Postoperative FJS (93 vs. 82 points, p = 0.007) and SKS (4.7 vs. 4.1 points, p = 0.001) were better in cementless than cemented UKA, with hybrid-fixated UKA in between the two (90 and 4.4 points, n.s.). Improvement of OKS preoperatively to postoperatively did not differ between the groups (n.s.). RLLs were more frequent in cemented (23%) compared to cementless (5%, p = 0.021) and hybrid UKA (9%, n.s.). With an incidence of 12%, subsidence occurred more commonly in cementless UKA compared to cemented (5%) and hybrid (0%) (n.s.) UKA.

CONCLUSION

Hybrid fixation achieves equivalent results to standard UKA fixation techniques regarding implant survival and functional and radiological outcomes. Therefore, the hybrid fixation technique seems to be a valuable alternative as it combines the advantages of cemented tibial components with those of uncemented femoral components.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.