Gibian Joseph T, Zuke William A, Hood Hunter, Blum Ethan, Nunley Ryan M, Barrack Robert L, Bendich Ilya
Division of Adult Reconstruction, Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.
J Arthroplasty. 2025 Mar;40(3):678-682. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.09.023. Epub 2024 Sep 21.
While early generations of cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) had inferior outcomes compared to cemented TKA, modern cementless designs have offered excellent clinical results. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and early aseptic revision rates of a specific cementless TKA design featuring a two-pegged tibia to that of its cemented counterpart.
A retrospective case series of all cementless and cemented TKAs utilizing a single design performed at a single, high-volume academic center was performed. Institutional review board approval was obtained. All cases were performed between November 2018 and March 2022. A minimum one-year follow-up was required. Demographics, complications, and reoperation/revision data were collected. Oxford Knee Score and Forgotten Joint Score were collected at one-year follow-up. Radiographic review was performed for cementless TKAs that were revised or had PROMs < one SD ("poor performers") or had PROMs > one SD ("high performers") below or above the mean, respectively.
There were 329 cementless and 349 cemented TKAs included. Mean follow-up was 1.9 and 2.6 years for cementless and cemented cohorts, respectively. There were no statistical PROM differences between the two cohorts. There was no statistical difference in aseptic revision rates between the cohorts (4.0% cementless versus 1.7% cemented, P = 0.078); however, there was a higher rate of tibial aseptic loosening in the cementless cohort (2.7% cementless versus 0% cemented, P = 0.002). The mean time to revision for aseptic tibial loosening was 17.6 months. There was no statistical difference in radiolucencies between "poor performers" and "high performers."
When compared to its cemented counterpart, the cementless TKA that was reintroduced in 2018 had similar one-year PROMs but a higher rate of early tibial loosening (2.7 versus 0.0%, P = 0.002).
III.
虽然早期的非骨水泥全膝关节置换术(TKA)与骨水泥TKA相比疗效较差,但现代非骨水泥设计已取得了出色的临床效果。本研究的目的是比较一种采用双柱胫骨的特定非骨水泥TKA设计与骨水泥对应设计的患者报告结局指标(PROMs)和早期无菌翻修率。
对在一个高容量学术中心采用单一设计进行的所有非骨水泥和骨水泥TKA进行回顾性病例系列研究。获得了机构审查委员会的批准。所有病例均在2018年11月至2022年3月期间进行。要求至少随访一年。收集人口统计学、并发症和再次手术/翻修数据。在随访一年时收集牛津膝关节评分和遗忘关节评分。对进行了翻修或PROMs分别低于或高于平均值一个标准差(“表现不佳者”)或高于平均值一个标准差(“表现优异者”)的非骨水泥TKA进行影像学检查。
纳入329例非骨水泥TKA和349例骨水泥TKA。非骨水泥组和骨水泥组的平均随访时间分别为1.9年和2.6年。两组之间的PROMs无统计学差异。两组之间的无菌翻修率无统计学差异(非骨水泥组为4.0%,骨水泥组为1.7%,P = 0.078);然而,非骨水泥组的胫骨无菌性松动率较高(非骨水泥组为2.7%,骨水泥组为0%,P = 0.002)。无菌性胫骨松动翻修的平均时间为17.6个月。“表现不佳者”和“表现优异者”之间的透光线无统计学差异。
与骨水泥对应设计相比,2018年重新引入的非骨水泥TKA在一年时的PROMs相似,但早期胫骨松动率较高(2.7%对0.0%,P = 0.002)。
III级。