Puri Simarjeet, Alpaugh Kyle, Chiu Yu-Fen, Ast Michael P, Jerabek Seth, Westrich Geoffrey, Chalmers Brian
Department of Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA.
Center for Hip & Knee Replacement, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
HSS J. 2024 May;20(2):202-207. doi: 10.1177/15563316231179220. Epub 2023 Jun 13.
Modern primary cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasingly popular, but there is limited evidence on its benefits, early complications, and failures. : We sought to evaluate operative time, early survivorship, and outcomes of cementless versus cemented TKA of the same design. : As part of this single-center, multisurgeon, retrospective cohort study, we reviewed 598 primary, unilateral TKAs (170 cementless, 428 cemented) of the same design from 2016 to 2018. The cementless cohort was younger (63 vs 67 years) and had more cruciate-retaining implants (17% vs 12%) compared with the cemented cohort. We compared operative time, length of stay, and complications. Survivorship curves were generated via the Kaplan-Meier method. : Patients with cementless TKA (using the Triathlon implant, Stryker) had a 24% reduction in operative time (83 vs 109 minutes) but similar length of stay compared with those with cemented TKA (57 vs 61 hours). Cementless TKA had a higher rate of postoperative manipulation for stiffness compared with cemented TKA (8% vs 3%), but there were notable demographic differences between the cohorts. Despite 2 cases (1%) of early cementless tibial aseptic loosening requiring component revision compared with none in the cemented cohort, there was no difference in revision-free survivorship at 2 years (96% and 98%, respectively). : This retrospective cohort study found that cementless TKA had a 24% reduction in operative time compared with cemented TKA and similar short-term survivorship. There was a slightly higher rate of aseptic revision and manipulation in the cementless cohort. Further study is warranted on the long-term durability of cemented and cementless TKAs to determine if cementless fixation proves more durable in the midterm to long term.
现代初次非骨水泥全膝关节置换术(TKA)越来越受欢迎,但关于其益处、早期并发症和失败情况的证据有限。我们试图评估相同设计的非骨水泥与骨水泥TKA的手术时间、早期生存率和结果。作为这项单中心、多外科医生的回顾性队列研究的一部分,我们回顾了2016年至2018年期间598例相同设计的初次单侧TKA(170例非骨水泥,428例骨水泥)。与骨水泥队列相比,非骨水泥队列患者更年轻(63岁对67岁),且保留交叉韧带的植入物更多(17%对12%)。我们比较了手术时间、住院时间和并发症情况。通过Kaplan-Meier方法生成生存曲线。使用非骨水泥TKA(使用史赛克的Triathlon植入物)的患者手术时间减少了24%(83分钟对109分钟),但与骨水泥TKA患者的住院时间相似(57小时对61小时)。与骨水泥TKA相比,非骨水泥TKA术后因僵硬进行手法治疗的比例更高(8%对3%),但队列之间存在显著的人口统计学差异。尽管有2例(1%)早期非骨水泥胫骨无菌性松动需要翻修假体,而骨水泥队列中无此情况,但2年时无翻修生存率无差异(分别为96%和98%)。这项回顾性队列研究发现,与骨水泥TKA相比,非骨水泥TKA的手术时间减少了24%,短期生存率相似。非骨水泥队列中的无菌性翻修和手法治疗比例略高。有必要对骨水泥和非骨水泥TKA的长期耐久性进行进一步研究,以确定非骨水泥固定在中长期是否更耐用。