Orthopedics

Review Article 

Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Jared M. Newman, MD; Nipun Sodhi, BA; Anton Khlopas, MD; Assem A. Sultan, MD; Morad Chughtai, MD; Roby Abraham, MD; Jason Oh, MD; Robert M. Molloy, MD; Steven F. Harwin, MD, FACS; Michael A. Mont, MD

Abstract

This review evaluated (1) original and newer cementless implants; (2) outcomes of newer designs; (3) risks and benefits; and (4) newer cementless vs cemented total knee arthroplasties. A search for all reports on cementless total knee arthroplasties published from January 2010 to April 2017 was performed, and 31 studies were included for final analysis. Newer cementless total knee arthroplasty designs have shown excellent survivorship, functional outcomes, and satisfaction rates in both young and elderly populations. Compared with cement fixation, there may be potential benefits with the newer cementless implants. However, these findings need to be further substantiated with additional studies reporting longer-term results. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(5):263–273.]

Abstract

This review evaluated (1) original and newer cementless implants; (2) outcomes of newer designs; (3) risks and benefits; and (4) newer cementless vs cemented total knee arthroplasties. A search for all reports on cementless total knee arthroplasties published from January 2010 to April 2017 was performed, and 31 studies were included for final analysis. Newer cementless total knee arthroplasty designs have shown excellent survivorship, functional outcomes, and satisfaction rates in both young and elderly populations. Compared with cement fixation, there may be potential benefits with the newer cementless implants. However, these findings need to be further substantiated with additional studies reporting longer-term results. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(5):263–273.]

Cement fixation has been the most commonly used method for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant fixation. Although cemented TKAs have been shown to have excellent survivorship,1–4 some studies have reported bone resorption, osteolysis, and aseptic loosening at the bone–cement interface,5–9 especially in younger patients.2,10 As the incidence of TKA in younger patients has increased, the indications for surgery have also expanded.11 Moreover, younger patients who undergo TKA are also usually more active,2,4 which places them at a higher risk for requiring revision surgery later in life. Therefore, to defer or potentially even prevent revision surgery, these patients would greatly benefit from long-term implant survivorship.12,13

Cementless fixation in TKA was initially developed to potentially preserve bone stock, to increase implant survivorship, and to decrease cement-related implant failures.5,14–16 However, the original cementless implants had high early failure rates that resulted from osteolysis and aseptic loosening, especially with the tibial component.17–20 Despite the problems reported with the original implants, current innovations in implant designs and newer biomaterials have been shown to have improved fixation and osseointegration, which may ultimately lead to improved longer-term cementless implant survivorship.14,16,21,22

These new advances warrant an updated analysis of modern cementless prostheses. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to evaluate the most recent literature on cementless TKA. Specifically, this review reports (1) a comparison of original and newer cementless implants; (2) outcomes of newer designs; (3) a risk–benefit analysis; and (4) a comparison of cementless vs cemented TKAs.

Materials and Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, SCOPUS, and EBSCO Host to identify studies that reported on cementless TKAs that were published from January 2010 to April 2017. The search string included the following terms: total knee arthroplasty [Title] OR total knee replacement [Title] OR knee [Title] AND uncemented [Title] OR cementless [Title] (NOT hip) (NOT acetabulum) (NOT hemiarthroplasty) (NOT shoulder) (NOT elbow). A total of 128 reports were found from this initial search. Studies that reported on TKAs with both cementless femoral and tibial components were included, whereas studies focusing on hybrid TKAs were excluded. The authors included randomized clinical trials and retrospective or case–control studies. Case series, reviews, and expert opinions were excluded. After review, 31 studies were included for final analysis.

Furthermore, a subanalysis on mobile bearing implants for TKA was also performed. The search string included the following terms: mobile bearing implants [Title] total knee arthroplasty [Title] OR total knee replacement [Title] OR knee [Title] AND uncemented [Title] OR cementless [Title] (NOT hip) (NOT acetabulum) (NOT hemiarthroplasty) (NOT shoulder) (NOT elbow). A total of 9 studies were found after the initial search. A total of 8 studies were excluded for various reasons: 2 studies were review articles, 2 studies focused on revision TKAs, 2 studies did not distinguish cemented vs cementless fixation, 1 study did not report on clinical outcomes, and 1 study used cement fixation.

An additional subanalysis on cementless patella fixation was also performed. The search string included the following terms: cementless patella [Title] total knee arthroplasty [Title] OR total knee replacement [Title] OR knee [Title] AND uncemented [Title] OR cementless [Title] (NOT hip) (NOT acetabulum) (NOT hemiarthroplasty) (NOT shoulder) (NOT elbow). The initial search resulted in 17 studies. After review of each study, 7 matched the authors' inclusion criteria. Reasons for excluding the remaining studies included focus on revision cases, cementless and cemented study designs, and revision TKAs.

Results

Original and Newer Cementless Implants

Cementless fixation, unlike cement, allows the bone and implant surface to form a biological bond that may respond more favorably to stress.14,15 The original cementless designs, however, were complicated by implant failure due to patchy porous coatings, design flaws, metallosis from metal-backed patellar failures, low-quality polyethylenes, and tibial tray subsidence from poor surgical technique.16,23,24 In addition, the original cementless designs with matte or gritblasted coatings showed poor biological fixation, and some implants were recalled. Similar to the prior coatings, highly porous tantalum-coated implants have had mixed results, with early failures leading to some implants being recalled.21,25

In contrast to these results,26 newer cementless implant designs have bioactive surface coatings that may facilitate both bone ingrowth and ongrowth.7 One implant design consists of a highly crystal-line solution form of hydroxyapatite that 3-dimensionally coats cobalt-chromium beads.27 Hydroxyapatite has been shown to improve both femoral and tibial implant fixation to bone and to decrease implant micromotion.28,29 Another design consists of highly porous titanium that is produced from commercially pure titanium and 3-dimensionally coats the bone apposition area of the implant.30–32 Highly porous titanium has a biologically inspired micro- and macrostructure,30 which allowed for a higher fixation strength and more bone ingrowth in a canine model,32 and may lead to more stability and decreased micromotion.27,33

Outcomes of Newer Cementless Designs

Since 2000, there have been several studies, including 3 randomized clinical trials (Table 1), 8 case–control studies (Table 2), and 20 cohort studies (Table 3), that have reported on the outcomes of newer cementless TKA designs.1,2,7,12,13,27,34–58

Randomized Clinical Trials

Table 1:

Randomized Clinical Trials

Case–Control StudiesCase–Control Studies

Table 2:

Case–Control Studies

Cohort StudiesCohort Studies

Table 3:

Cohort Studies

In a prospective randomized clinical study, Fricka et al34 described 47 patients who had a mean age of 60 years (range, 43–72 years) and received a cementless TKA and 46 patients who had a mean age of 59 years (range, 43–72 years) and received a cemented TKA, with at least 2 years of follow-up. Although the cemented group had better Knee Society Scores (KSS) than the cementless group (mean, 96 vs 92 points, P=.03), there was no significant difference in the KSS functional scores (mean, 95 vs 92 points, P=.14). Additionally, there was 1 septic failure in the cemented group and 1 aseptic failure in the cementless group, but there were no differences between the 2 groups in terms of patient satisfaction (P=.59) or pain control (P=.31).

In a recent study comparing the implant coatings of newer cementless TKAs, Harwin et al7 evaluated 805 beaded periapatite-coated cementless TKAs in patients who had a mean age of 67 years and 219 highly porous titanium-coated cementless TKAs in patients who had a mean age of 66 years. At a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, there were no differences between the beaded periapatite-coated and the highly porous titanium-coated TKAs in terms of KSS functional scores (mean, 85 vs 85 points, P=.766) or pain scores (mean, 93 vs 93 points, P=.9). Moreover, the authors reported that the all-cause survivorship in both groups was 99.5%. In the periapatite-coated group, there were 3 septic failures and 1 aseptic failure due to subsidence that required tibial component revision. In the highly porous titanium-coated group, there were only 2 aseptic failures that underwent revision—1 for subsidence and 1 for radiolucency. Although no statistical difference (P=.936) was seen between the highly porous titanium-coated group and the periapatite-coated group, the highly porous titanium-coated group still had an overall lower revision rate. In another study, Ouanezar et al36 described 87 cementless TKAs performed with computer-assisted surgery and 51 cementless TKAs performed conventionally in patients who had a mean age of 70 years and were followed for a mean of 10.5 years. Patient satisfaction was not significantly different between the conventional and the computer-assisted groups (98% vs 89%, P>.05), and there were no differences in KSS knee score (mean, 92 vs 91 points, P>.05) or KSS functional score (mean, 71 vs 73 points, P>.05). The authors also mentioned that, for both groups, the 10-year survivorship for aseptic loosening was 100%.

Although cementless TKAs were initially intended for younger patients, there have been successful outcomes in the elderly as well. A recent study27 reported on a cohort of 134 patients (142 knees) older than 75 years (mean, 80 years) who underwent cementless TKA and had a mean follow-up of 4 years (range, 2–8 years). The aseptic survivorship was 99.3%, and the all-cause implant survivorship was 98.6%. There was 1 aseptic revision due to aseptic loosening of the tibial baseplate, and 1 septic revision. Patients who have inflammatory arthropathies may also benefit from cementless TKAs. Buchheit et al45 evaluated 23 patients (34 knees) who had chronic inflammatory arthritis, had a mean age of 55 years (range, 26–78 years), underwent cementless TKA, and were followed for a mean of 6 years (range, 3–12 years). The survivorship was 97%, with 1 revision being performed for aseptic loosening and 1 because of a periprosthetic joint infection. Additionally, at the latest follow-up, 96% of patients reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the results of their surgery. Various other studies have reported excellent short-term outcomes of cementless designs.1,13,37,49,50

In summary, although initially intended for younger patients who undergo TKA, the newer cementless TKA designs have shown excellent survivorship, functional outcomes, and satisfaction rates in not only young but also elderly populations. Having 1 implant type that can appropriately manage 2 distinct patient populations further adds to an orthopedic surgeon's ability to best manage each individual patient.

Risk–Benefit Analysis

One of the many advantages of cementless TKA fixation is the biological bond that forms between the interface of the bone and the implant. With highly porous titanium, the higher porosity allows for an increased amount of and rapid bone ingrowth in the canine model, which might explain its higher tensile strength.32 As evidenced in the canine study, hydroxyapatite-coated cobalt-chromium creates a milieu that is suitable for bone formation,32 thereby hastening bone ingrowth and fixation.22 In a study by Hansson et al59 comparing porous beaded fixation coated implants with hydroxyapatite-coated implants, the latter had significantly less tibial subsidence at 2-year follow-up.

Another advantage of cementless TKA is that this technique has been shown to decrease tourniquet and operative times. Unlike cemented TKA, cementless prostheses do not require complete exposure of trabecular bone, and the surgeon does not have to wait for the cement to dry.60 Kamath et al40 reported that, compared with patients who underwent cementless fixation, patients who underwent cemented TKA had a mean operative time that was 12 minutes longer (mean, 61 vs 73 minutes, P<.01). One study reported that the operating room charges are $1500 per 15-minute interval for cemented cases, and that an average of 20 minutes is spent on the cementing portion of the TKA; therefore, $3000 is saved per cementless TKA case.12

The use of cementless TKA has been questioned in those patients with poor bone quality and potentially decreased remodeling capacity of bone, which could potentially affect fixation of the implant.61,62 Li and Nilsson62 used radiostereometry to measure migration of the tibial implant in 28 knees that received either cementless or cemented TKAs. The authors noted that in the cementless TKAs, the preoperative bone quality influenced the amount of tibial component migration; in addition, during the early postoperative period, cemented fixation can compensate for differences in bone quality. Despite the fact that elderly patients can have poor bone quality, this is not always the case. Elderly patients with good bone quality might benefit from these implants, as evidenced by the study by Newman et al,27 which had 99.3% survivorship.

Also, it has been reported that compared with cemented TKA, cementless fixation can be associated with greater blood loss. Porteous et al63 evaluated 100 patients who underwent TKA and received a cemented, cementless, or hybrid prosthesis. The authors reported that compared with the cemented group, the total mean drainage was higher in the cementless group (1220 vs 754 mL, P<.001) and the hybrid group (1035 vs 754 mL, P<.05). Similarly, in a smaller study, Mylod et al64 described 34 patients (48 knees) who received either cementless or cemented TKAs. They found that compared with the cemented group, the cementless group had significantly more blood loss (P<.01) and had a higher transfusion rate (P<.025) in the first 48 hours postoperatively. However, in a study by Nam et al,1 there were no significant differences between the cementless and the cemented groups in terms of blood loss (202 vs 192 mL, P=.7).

Although the component costs for cementless TKAs have been reported to be higher24 (sometimes up to 3 times higher than those for cemented TKA),65 fewer resources are used during cementless surgery; hence, the total cost per procedure may more likely be lower.40 Kamath et al40 reported that with the money saved from not using additionally required cement-related supplies and the shorter operative times, the difference in cost between cementless and cemented TKAs was $150.

Comparison of Outcomes for Cementless and Cemented TKAs

Several studies have compared the outcomes of cementless TKAs with the outcomes of cemented TKAs at various time points. Short- to mid-term outcome studies analyzed patients with newer implant designs, whereas longer-term studies analyzed patients with similar but slightly older implant designs. Nevertheless, in most studies, similar findings have been noted between cementless and cemented cohorts at the different time points.

Nam et al1 analyzed 128 patients who had a mean age of 63 years. Sixty-six patients (66 knees) received a cementless TKA, and 62 patients (62 knees) received a cemented TKA. At a mean follow-up of 1.4 years, the implant survivorship was 100% in both groups. Furthermore, there was no difference in patient satisfaction between the groups (P=.4). Fricka et al34 performed a prospective randomized trial that compared 50 patients with trabecular metal with 50 patients with cement. At 2-year follow-up, they found that the KSS clinical scores were significantly lower in the cementless group compared with the cemented group (mean, 92 vs 96 points, P=.03), but there was no difference in the KSS functional scores (mean, 92 vs 95 points, P=.14). Additionally, there were no differences between the groups in terms of survivorship. Similarly, Park and Kim41 reviewed 50 patients (100 knees) with a mean age of 58 years (range, 51–67 years) who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKA and received a cementless implant in 1 knee and a cemented implant in the other. At a mean follow-up of 2 years, there were no differences between the cementless and cemented TKAs for KSS knee scores (mean, 98 vs 96 points, P=.350), KSS functional scores (mean, 88 vs 86, P=.627), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (mean, 35.6 vs 34.5 points, P=.191). There were also no differences in patient satisfaction scores between the cementless TKA and the cemented TKA (mean, 8.3 vs 8.1 points, P=.728). The authors reported that the femoral component survivorship was 100% for both but that the cementless tibial component survivorship was 98%. Of note, this study evaluated primarily Korean patients. Additionally, the cementless cohort had a significantly greater postoperative blood loss than the cemented cohort (mean, 1686.9 vs 1021.9 mL, P=.005).

Other studies have reported on the mid-term outcomes of cementless and cemented TKA. Bagsby et al37 reviewed 144 obese patients (145 knees) with a mean age of 63, years who received a cementless TKA (144 posterior-stabilized knees and 1 cruciate-retaining knee) and were followed for a mean of 3.6 years, and 149 patients (154 knees) with a mean age of 59, years who received a cemented TKA (96 posterior-stabilized knees, 58 cruciate-retaining knees) and were followed for a mean of 6.1 years. Compared with the cemented group, the cementless group had better KSS function scores (mean, 79 vs 55 points, P<.0001) and KSS pain scores (mean, 93 vs 88, points, P=.0001). The survivorship for aseptic loosening at 8 years was 100% for the cementless TKA, 93.8% for the cemented posterior-stabilized TKA, and 94.8% for the cruciate-retaining TKA. In another study, Kamath et al40 evaluated 100 patients (100 knees) younger than 55 years who underwent cementless TKA, and 312 patients (312 knees) with a mean age of 63 years who underwent cemented TKA. At a mean follow-up of more than 5 years, there were no differences between the cementless and cemented TKAs in KSS knee score (mean, 94.7 vs 91.3 points, P>.05) or functional score (mean, 88.4 vs 86.1 points, P>.05). In the cementless group, there were 3 failures, but none were related to implant fixation; however, in the cemented group, 2 revisions were performed for aseptic loosening.

For longer-term outcomes, Choy et al35 evaluated 126 patients (168 knees) with a mean age of 68 years (range, 49–80 years) who underwent TKA. Six patients who underwent bilateral TKAs had cemented fixation in 1 knee and cementless in the other. Eighty-two knees received cementless and 86 knees received cemented TKAs. At a mean follow-up of 9 years, there were no significant differences between the cementless and cemented groups in terms of KSS knee scores (mean, 94 vs 94 points, P=.90), KSS functional scores (mean, 78 vs 77 points, P=.92), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (mean, 26.8 vs 24.7, P=.19). The authors also reported that the survivorship with loosening or revision was 100% for both groups.

Additionally, Kim et al2 reported on the longer-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial that included 80 patients (160 knees) with a mean age of 54.3 years (range, 49–55 years) who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKA with a cementless implant placed in 1 knee and a cemented implant placed in the other. At a mean follow-up of 16.6 years, there were no significant differences between the cementless and cemented TKAs for KSS knee scores (mean, 96 vs 97 points, P=.319) or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (mean, 25.4 vs 25.9 points, P=.189). Additionally, they reported that patient satisfaction was similar between the cementless and cemented TKAs (mean, 8.1 vs 8.3 points, P=.698). At 17 years, the tibial component survivorship in the cementless group was 98.7%, with 1 being revised for aseptic loosening, but the femoral component survivorship was 100%. In the cemented group, the survivorship was 100% for both the femoral and tibial components.

A Cochrane review evaluated all studies performed through 2011 reporting on different component fixation options for TKA, including cementless, cemented, and hybrid fixation. The analysis, which included 3 studies that described 216 patients, used an instability classification that was based on radiographic measurements. It was determined that more displacement occurred in the cementless tibial components compared with the cemented components. Additionally, the risk of aseptic loosening with cemented fixation was twice that of cementless fixation.66 However, implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes were not analyzed.

On the basis of the above studies, cemented and cementless TKA patients had similar outcomes at various postoperative time points. Patient satisfaction and functional outcome scores were also similarly positive among all cohorts. Therefore, cementless TKA appears to be just as effective as cemented TKA.

Subanalysis—Rotating Platforms

A subanalysis on rotating platforms was also completed. Only 1 study satisfied the current authors' inclusion criteria. Napier et al67 compared 98 patients (100 TKAs) with a mean age of 65 years (range, 54–79 years) who were morbidly obese (50 TKAs) or nonobese (50 TKAs) and received cementless rotating platform TKAs. The intraoperative anesthetic times were similar between the morbidly obese and nonobese cohorts (mean, 36 vs 31 minutes, P>.05). They also found a significant range of motion difference between the morbidly obese and nonobese patients preoperatively (mean, 99.0° vs 113.0°, P<.001) and at 1 year postoperatively (mean, 99.3° vs 104.3°, P<.033). They found Short-Form 12 outcome differences between the cohorts to be similar both preoperatively (mean, 42 vs 42 points, P>.05) and 1 year postoperatively (mean, 47 vs 50, P>.05). There were no revision surgeries. However, 4 patients developed superficial wound infections and 2 patients developed deep wound infections and were treated with irrigation and debridement with component retention. Therefore, on the basis of these results, both morbidly obese and nonobese patients who receive rotating platform implants can potentially achieve improved 1-year outcomes.

Subanalysis—Cementless Patella Fixation

A total of 7 studies met the inclusion criteria for cementless patella fixation. All 7 of the studies had a minimum of 2-year follow-up, with the overall mean follow-up time of all studies being 8 years.

Gerscovich et al25 performed a minimum 10-year follow-up study involving a group of 95 patients (108 TKAs) who had a mean age of 65 years and underwent cementless TKA. A total of 47 patients (58 TKAs) were available at 11-year follow-up. They reported a 97% survivorship for the tibial and femoral components. There were 2 cases of patellar revisions for loose components. At a mean follow-up of 6 years, Chan and Giori42 evaluated 29 patients (30 TKAs) with a mean age of 51 years who underwent cementless TKA with a cementless metal-backed titanium patella. At the follow-up visit, patellar fractures had occurred in 6 knees (20%). Although 4 TKAs required reoperations, Chan and Giori did not attribute the revision surgeries to the patellar component fractures. Harwin et al13 described 951 patients (1024 knees) who underwent cementless TKAs and were followed for a mean of 4 years. They reported that 1 patient had dislodgment of the patellar implant during a manipulation under anesthesia at 6 weeks postoperatively. Due to the dislodgment, a cemented patellar component was then implanted.

Additionally, Nodzo et al68 reviewed the radiographs of 101 TKAs that had cementless patella components and 50 TKAs with cemented patella components. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, the survivorship was 100% in both groups, and there were no signs of patellar instability. However, compared with the cemented group, 45% of the knees in the cementless group had small areas of lower trabecular bone density around the patellar pegs. Kwong et al12 described 105 patients (115 knees) with a mean age of 67 years who underwent cementless TKA and were followed for a mean of 7 years. They reported survivorship of 96%, no radiographic evidence of osteolysis, and no revisions for aseptic loosening. There was 1 intraoperative patellar fracture and 1 postoperative patellar fracture from a fall. The latter was treated nonoperatively, and the patient has done well without any changes in the patellar component position.

Yamanaka et al69 evaluated 31 patients with rheumatoid arthritis and a mean age of 64 years who underwent cementless TKA with a cementless all-polyethylene patellar component and were followed for a mean of 8 years. None of the patellae had radiolucent lines, and the implant survivorship at 12 years was 97%. Ritter and Meneghini57 described 47 patients (73 knees) with a mean age of 59 years who underwent cementless TKA with a metal-backed cementless patella. Fifteen failures occurred, with 12 revision surgeries performed for failure of the metal-backed patellar components and metallosis. The mean time to failure was 9 years.

These studies reveal favorable outcomes of cementless fixation for the patellar component. Overall, 1359 patients (1482 TKAs) were analyzed. There were 25 adverse postoperative events (2%) related to the patella. These events ranged from patellar fracture due to traumatic fall, which was treated nonoperatively, to component dislodgment during manipulation under anesthesia. Therefore, based on the above results, cementless fixation of the patellar component is a potentially successful option.

Discussion

Survivorship of TKAs depends, in part, on the ability of the bone and implant to maintain fixation. The most commonly used method has been with cement. However, with younger patients undergoing TKA, alternative fixation techniques have been developed to improve implant longevity.

Studies have compared cohorts of patients who received cementless TKAs regarding screw fixation, obesity, and computer-assisted surgery.36,39,70 However, as newer cementless designs have been marketed, there is a paucity of literature comparing their different types of coatings.7 At a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, Harwin et al7 found no differences between cementless TKAs coated with highly porous titanium vs beaded periapatite in terms of survivorship, function, or complication rates. Moreover, additional studies focusing on comparing different types of highly porous metal coatings and other bioactive coatings would be beneficial.

In the current health care environment, where payers are pressuring hospitals to substantiate the costs of surgery, the financial burden associated with TKA has become increasingly important.71 Moreover, one of the largest expenses associated with TKA is the cost of the implants, which has been shown to vary between hospitals and surgeons.72 Therefore, to determine the cost-effectiveness of cementless TKA, there needs to be a reduction in the variability of pricing. Although surgery may be faster in cementless TKA, there are other variables that may influence the cost, such as the implant and transfusion.

This review had some limitations. Specifically, the authors did not discuss hybrid fixation, having a cemented component along with a cementless component, which has been proposed due to the strength of the high osteoconductive properties of the modern coatings. Because this study focused on only cementless fixation of both TKA components, this design type was not included. Additionally, the subanalyses performed on rotating platform implants and cementless patella fixation were limited by the number of studies currently available in the literature. Future studies should analyze the uses, clinical and radiographic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and costs of different implant and fixation modalities.

Conclusion

Newer-generation cementless TKA implants have potentially positive short-term outcomes and survivorship without increased complications. Patient satisfaction and functional scores have also been found to be favorable. However, most studies focus on short-term outcomes. Therefore, additional studies reporting longer-term results are needed. The component cost for cementless TKA needs to become more cost-effective. Still, the overall costs of performing cementless TKA have been reported to be lower than those of performing cemented TKA because of the cement and time associated with the latter. Thus, if outcomes continue to be successful and overall costs lower, the authors suspect that during the next 5 years, orthopedic surgeons who currently use cemented designs may become more amenable to using cementless implants. Because many cementless implant designs are relatively new, long-term analyses and component cost-effectiveness analyses need to be performed.

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(7):2151–2155. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.051 [CrossRef]
  2. Kim YH, Park JW, Lim HM, Park ES. Cementless and cemented total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than fifty five years: which is better?Int Orthop. 2014; 38(2):297–303. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2243-4 [CrossRef]
  3. Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, 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.
  4. 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(2):318–321. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2015.10.008 [CrossRef]
  5. Chong DY, 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(5):948–954. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.11.026 [CrossRef]
  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(8):1362–1371. doi:10.2106/00004623-200208000-00012 [CrossRef]
  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(7):2156–2160. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.044 [CrossRef]
  8. Bush JL, Wilson JB, Vail TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 452:186–192. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000229360.04620.93 [CrossRef]
  9. Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Management of bone loss in revision TKA: it's a changing world. Orthopedics. 2010; 33(9):662.
  10. Naudie DD, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA, Rorabeck CH. Wear and osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007; 15(1):53–64. doi:10.5435/00124635-200701000-00006 [CrossRef]
  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. doi:10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6 [CrossRef]
  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)(suppl A):87–92. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34327 [CrossRef]
  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. doi:10.3928/01477447-20151002-04 [CrossRef]
  14. Brown TE, Harper BL, Bjorgul K. Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2013; 36(5):380–387. doi:10.3928/01477447-20130426-10 [CrossRef]
  15. Dalury DF. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: current concepts review. Bone Joint J. 2016; 98-B(7):867–873. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.98B7.37367 [CrossRef]
  16. Meneghini RM, Hanssen AD. Cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty: past, present, and future. J Knee Surg. 2008; 21(4):307–314. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1247837 [CrossRef]
  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. doi:10.1097/00003086-200111000-00024 [CrossRef]
  18. Kim YH, Oh JH, Oh SH. Osteolysis around cementless porous-coated anatomic knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1995; 77(2):236–241. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.77B2.7706337 [CrossRef]
  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.
  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(2):243–246. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.74B2.1544961 [CrossRef]
  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. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.03.057 [CrossRef]
  22. Cross MJ, Parish EN. A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: prospective analysis of 1000 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005; 87(8):1073–1076. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87B8.15772 [CrossRef]
  23. Mont MA, Pivec R, Issa K, Kapadia BH, Maheshwari A, Harwin SF. Long-term implant survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Knee Surg. 2014; 27(5):369–376.
  24. Cherian JJ, Banerjee S, Kapadia BH, Jauregui JJ, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: a review. J Knee Surg. 2014; 27(3):193–197. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1374811 [CrossRef]
  25. Gerscovich D, Schwing C, Unger A. Long-term results of a porous tantalum monoblock tibia component: clinical and radiographic results at follow-up of 10 years. Arthroplast Today. 2017; 3(3):192–196. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2017.02.004 [CrossRef]
  26. Bauer TW, Schils J. The pathology of total joint arthroplasty: I. Mechanisms of implant fixation. Skeletal Radiol. 1999; 28(8):423–432. doi:10.1007/s002560050541 [CrossRef]
  27. Newman JM, Khlopas A, Chughtai M, et al. Cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients older than 75 years. J Knee Surg. 2017; 30(9):930–935. doi:10.1055/s-0037-1599253 [CrossRef]
  28. Søballe K, Toksvig-Larsen S, Gelineck J, et al. Migration of hydroxyapatite coated femoral prostheses: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993; 75(5):681–687. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.75B5.8397213 [CrossRef]
  29. Nelissen RG, Valstar ER, Rozing PM. The effect of hydroxyapatite on the micromotion of total knee prostheses: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998; 80(11):1665–1672. doi:10.2106/00004623-199811000-00014 [CrossRef]
  30. Muth J, Poggie M, Kulesha G, Meneghini RM. Novel highly porous metal technology in artificial hip and knee replacement: processing methodologies and clinical applications. JOM. 2013; 65(2):318–325. doi:10.1007/s11837-012-0528-5 [CrossRef]
  31. Carli AV, Warth LC, de Mesy Bentley KL, Nestor BJ. Short to midterm follow-up of the Tritanium primary acetabular component: a cause for concern. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(2):463–469. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.024 [CrossRef]
  32. Frenkel SR, Jaffe WL, Dimaano F, Iesaka K, Hua T. Bone response to a novel highly porous surface in a canine implantable chamber. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2004; 71(2):387–391. doi:10.1002/jbm.b.30104 [CrossRef]
  33. Bhimji S, Meneghini RM. Micromotion of cementless tibial baseplates: keels with adjuvant pegs offer more stability than pegs alone. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(7):1503–1506. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.02.016 [CrossRef]
  34. 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. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.049 [CrossRef]
  35. Choy WS, Yang DS, Lee KW, Lee SK, Kim KJ, Chang SH. 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. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.006 [CrossRef]
  36. Ouanezar H, Franck F, Jacquel A, Pibarot V, Wegrzyn J. Does computer-assisted surgery influence survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis? A 10-year follow-up study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016; 24(11):3448–3456. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4112-3 [CrossRef]
  37. Bagsby DT, Issa K, Smith LS, et al. Cemented vs cementless total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(8):1727–1731. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.025 [CrossRef]
  38. van Hove RP, Brohet RM, van Royen BJ, Nolte PA. No clinical benefit of titanium nitride coating in cementless mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015; 23(6):1833–1840. doi:10.1007/s00167-014-3359-9 [CrossRef]
  39. Lizaur-Utrilla A, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Sanz-Reig J, Collados-Maestre I. Cementless total knee arthroplasty in obese patients: a prospective matched study with follow-up of 5–10 years. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(6):1192–1196. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.11.011 [CrossRef]
  40. Kamath AF, Lee GC, 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(8):1390–1395. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.030 [CrossRef]
  41. 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. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.93B11.27507 [CrossRef]
  42. Chan JY, Giori NJ. Uncemented metal-backed tantalum patellar components in total knee arthroplasty have a high fracture rate at midterm follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(8):2427–2430. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.062 [CrossRef]
  43. Bouras T, Bitas V, Fennema P, Korovessis P. Good long-term results following cementless TKA with a titanium plasma coating. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017; 25(9):2801–2808. doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3769-3 [CrossRef]
  44. Normand X, Pinçon JL, Ragot JM, Verdier R, Aslanian T. Prospective study of the cementless “New Wave” total knee mobile-bearing arthroplasty: 8-year follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2015; 25(2):349–354. doi:10.1007/s00590-014-1484-2 [CrossRef]
  45. Buchheit J, Serre A, Bouilloux X, Puyraveau M, Jeunet L, Garbuio P. Cementless total knee arthroplasty in chronic inflammatory rheumatism. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014; 24(8):1489–1498. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1316-9 [CrossRef]
  46. Abram SG, Nicol F, Hullin MG, Spencer SJ. The long-term outcome of uncemented Low Contact Stress total knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results at a mean of 22 years. Bone Joint J. 2013; 95-B(11):1497–1499. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.32257 [CrossRef]
  47. Meneghini RM, de Beaubien BC. Early failure of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial components. J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28(9):1505–1508. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.03.005 [CrossRef]
  48. Azboy I, Demirtas A, Bulut M, Oztürkmen Y, Sükür E, Caniklioglu M. Long-term results of porous-coated cementless total knee arthroplasty with screw fixation. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2013; 47(5):347–353. doi:10.3944/AOTT.2013.3196 [CrossRef]
  49. Wedemeyer C, Kauther MD, Bülbül M, Jäger M, Peppmüller R, Bredendiek T. Cementless second-generation hydroxyapatite CaP-coated tibial component: an 8.7-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012; 132(12):1759–1764. doi:10.1007/s00402-012-1608-2 [CrossRef]
  50. Ghalayini SR, Helm AT, McLauchlan GJ. Minimum 6 year results of an uncemented trabecular metal tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2012; 19(6):872–874. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2012.05.001 [CrossRef]
  51. Melton JT, Mayahi R, Baxter SE, Facek M, Glezos C. Long-term outcome in an uncemented, hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: a 15- to 18-year survivorship analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(8):1067–1070. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28350 [CrossRef]
  52. 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. doi:10.2174/1874325001206010160 [CrossRef]
  53. Unger AS, Duggan JP. Midterm results of a porous tantalum monoblock tibia component: clinical and radiographic results of 108 knees. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(6):855–860. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.08.017 [CrossRef]
  54. Woo YK, Kim KW, Chung JW, Lee HS. Average 10.1-year follow-up of cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Can J Surg. 2011; 54(3):179–184. doi:10.1503/cjs.000910 [CrossRef]
  55. Signorelli JJ, Bernini PM, Shirreffs TG. Uncemented total knee arthroplasty: 2-year follow-up of 100 knees with a rotating platform, cruciate-retaining design. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(3):427–431. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.01.094 [CrossRef]
  56. Cossetto DJ, Gouda AD. Uncemented tibial fixation total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011; 26(1):41–44. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.12.008 [CrossRef]
  57. Ritter MA, Meneghini RM. Twenty-year survivorship of cementless anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(4):507–513. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.018 [CrossRef]
  58. Holloway IP, Lusty PJ, Walter WL, Walter WK, Zicat BA. Tibial fixation without screws in cementless knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(1):46–51. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.023 [CrossRef]
  59. Hansson U, Ryd L, Toksvig-Larsen S. A randomised RSA study of Peri-Apatite HA coating of a total knee prosthesis. Knee. 2008; 15(3):211–216. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2008.01.013 [CrossRef]
  60. Matassi F, Carulli C, Civinini R, Innocenti M. Cemented versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Joints. 2014; 1(3):121–125.
  61. Boskey AL, Coleman R. Aging and bone. J Dent Res. 2010; 89(12):1333–1348. doi:10.1177/0022034510377791 [CrossRef]
  62. Li MG, Nilsson KG. The effect of the preoperative bone quality on the fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15(6):744–753. doi:10.1054/arth.2000.6617 [CrossRef]
  63. Porteous AJ, Bartlett RJ. Post-operative drainage after cemented, hybrid and uncemented total knee replacement. Knee. 2003; 10(4):371–374. doi:10.1016/S0968-0160(03)00002-4 [CrossRef]
  64. Mylod AG Jr, France MP, Muser DE, Parsons JR. Perioperative blood loss associated with total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of procedures performed with and without cementing. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(7):1010–1012. doi:10.2106/00004623-199072070-00008 [CrossRef]
  65. Beaupré LA, al-Yamani M, Huckell JR, Johnston DW. Hydroxyapatite-coated tibial implants compared with cemented tibial fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized trial of outcomes at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(10):2204–2211.
  66. Nakama GY, Peccin MS, Almeida GJ, Lira Neto Ode A, 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.
  67. Napier RJ, O'Brien S, Bennett D, et al. Intraoperative and short term outcome of total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. Knee. 2014; 21(3):784–788. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.016 [CrossRef]
  68. Nodzo SR, Hohman DW, Hoy AS, BayersThering M, Pavlesen S, Phillips MJ. Short term outcomes of a hydroxyapatite coated metal backed patella. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(8):1339–1343. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2015.02.029 [CrossRef]
  69. Yamanaka H, Goto K, Suzuki M. Clinical results of Hi-tech Knee II total knee arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: 5- to 12-year follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res. 2012; 7:9. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-7-9 [CrossRef]
  70. Ferguson RP, Friederichs MG, Hofmann AA. Comparison of screw and screwless fixation in cementless total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2008; 31(2):127. doi:10.3928/01477447-20080201-10 [CrossRef]
  71. Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Khlopas A, et al. Determining cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee arthroplasty using the Short Form-6D utility measure. J Arthroplasty. 2017; 32(2):351–354. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.006 [CrossRef]
  72. Robinson JC, Pozen A, Tseng S, Bozic KJ. Variability in costs associated with total hip and knee replacement implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 94(18):1693–1698. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00355 [CrossRef]

Randomized Clinical Trials

Study (Year) and Implant TypeImplant Company and ProductNo. of PatientsNo. of KneesMean Age, yMean Follow-up, yNo. of Patients (Knees) AnalyzedMean KSS, pointsSurvivorshipAseptic Survivorship
Fricka et al34 (2015)Zimmer
  CementlessNexGen505060247 (47)Preop: 44 (c), 56 (f)97.8%97.8%
Postop: 92 (c), 92 (f)
  CementedNexGen505059246 (46)Preop: 48 (c), 57 (f)97.8%100%
Postop: 96 (c), 95 (f)
Choy et al35 (2014)DePuy
  CementlessLCS6582659.665 (82)Preop: 43 (f), 50 (c)100%100%
Postop: 78 (f), 94 (c)
  CementedLCS6786699.367 (86)Preop: 41 (f), 52 (c)100%100%
Postop: 77 (f), 94 (c)
Kim et al2 (2014)Zimmer
  CementlessNexGen808054.316.680 (80)Preop: 35 (c)98.7%98.7%
Postop: 96 (c)
  CementedNexGen808054.316.680 (80)Preop: 34 (c)100%100%
Postop: 97 (c)

Case–Control Studies

Study (Year) and Implant TypeImplant Company and ProductNo. of PatientsNo. of KneesMean Age, yMean Follow-up, yNo. of Patients (Knees) AnalyzedMean KSS, pointsSurvivorshipAseptic Survivorship
Nam et al1 (2017)Stryker
  CementlessTriathlon666662.91.466 (66)NA100%100%
  CementedTriathlon626263.31.462 (62)NA100%100%
Ouanezar et al36 (2016)Amplitude
  Cementless with CASNR82877110.4(59)Preop: 39 (c), 56 (f)94%Aseptic loosening:
Postop: 91 (c), 73 (f)100%
  Cementless without CASNR47516910.6(36)Preop: 38 (c), 50 (f)86%Aseptic loosening:
Postop: 92 (c), 71 (f)100%
Bagsby et al37 (2016)Stryker
  CementlessTriathlon144145633.6144 (145)Preop: 53 (f), 59 (p)PS knee 99.3%Aseptic loosening: PS knee 100%
Postop: 79 (f), 93 (p)
  CementedTriathlon or Scorpio149154596.1149 (154)Preop: 43 (f), 38 (p)PS knee 86.5%; CR knee 89.7%Aseptic loosening: PS knee 93.8%; CR knee 94.8%
Postop: 55 (f), 88 (p)
van Hove et al38 (2015)Implantcast and DePuy
  Cementless—compared titanium nitride–coatedImplantcast ACS knee system515170551 (51)NANRAseptic loosening: 96.1%
  Cementless—CoCrMoDePuy LCS505068550 (50)NANRAseptic loosening: 96%
Lizaur-Utrilla et al39 (2014)Stryker
  Cementless obeseDuracon169171707.4169 (171)Preop: 26.3 (c), 33 (f)88.9%NR
Postop: 86.8 (c), 88.6 (f)
  Cementless nonobeseDuracon153171717.2153 (171)Preop: 29.3 (c), 42.4 (f)91.8%NR
Postop: 88.5 (c), 91.7 (f)
Kamath et al40 (2011)Zimmer
  CementlessNexGen100100<55>5100 (100)Postop: 94.7 (c), 88.4 (f)Aseptic loosening: 100%
  CementedNexGen31231263>5312 (312)Postop: 91.3 (c), 86.1 (f)Aseptic loosening: 99.3%
Park and Kim41 (2011)Zimmer
  CementlessNexGen505058250 (50)Preop: 47 (f), 3 (p)98%98%
Postop: 88 (f), 46 (p)
  CementedNexGen505058250 (50)Preop: 48 (f), 3 (p)100%100%
Postop: 86 (f), 45 (p)
Harwin et al7 (2017)Stryker
  Cementless beaded periapatiteTriathlonNR805674.4(805)Preop: NR99.5%99.8%
Postop: 93 (p), 85 (f)
  Cementless highly porousTriathlonNR219664.4(219)Preop: NR99.5%99.1%
Postop: 93 (p), 85 (f)

Cohort Studies

Study (Year)Implant Company (Product)No. of PatientsNo. of KneesMean Age, yMean Follow-up, yNo. of Patients (Knees) AnalyzedOutcome ScoresSurvivorshipAseptic Survivorship
Newman et al27 (2017)Stryker (Triathlon)134142804134 (142)Postop: 84 (f)98.6%99.3%
Chan and Giori42 (2017)Zimmer293059529 (30)NRNR90%
Harwin et al13 (2015)Stryker (Triathlon)9521025664952 (1025)Preop: 56 (f), 56 (p)NR99.6%
Postop: 85 (f), 93 (p)
Bouras et al43 (2017)Smith & Nephew (TC-Plus)1712066813.2113 (136)Preop: 40 (f), 23 (p)93.2% at 10 years, 90.4% at 15 years95.7% at 10 years, 93.6% at 15 years
Postop: 80 (f), 44 (p)
Normand et al44 (2015)Groupe Lépine (New Wave)7484735.374 (84)HSS preop: 5791.4%Aseptic loosening: 95%
Postop: 84
Buchheit et al45 (2014)Zimmer (NK2)27 RA patients3955623 (34)Postop: 83 (k), 74 (f)90%97%
Kwong et al12 (2014)Zimmer (NexGen)105115677105 (115)NR95.7%NR
Abram et al46 (2013)DePuy (LCS)47 RA patients63692212 (17)NR88.9%NR
Meneghini et al47 (2013)Zimmer96106653.493 (101)NR91.1%NR
Azboy et al48 (2013)Biomet (Performance system) with screw fixation5468579.254 (68)Preop: 42 (k), 39 (f)95.6%NR
Postop: 89 (k), 83 (f)
Wedemeyer et al49 (2012)Smith & Nephew and DOT8181718.776 (76)Preop: 12497.5%NR
Postop: 187
Ghalayini et al50 (2012)Zimmer (NexGen Legacy)105109726.772 (76)Postop: 87.2 (k), 76.8 (f)98.6%NR
Melton et al51 (2012)Advanced Surgical Design and Manufacture Pty Ltd (Active total knee replacement system)356471NR16.4325 (432)Preop: 97Postop: 17694.5%Aseptic loosening: 96%
Schüttrumpf et al52 (2012)Aesculap (Columbus knee system)6060685.652 (52)Preop: 50 (f), 25 (k)95%Aseptic loosening: 98.3%
Postop: 87 (f), 93 (k)
Unger et al53 (2011)Zimmer95108654.595 (108)Preop: 36 (k), 46 (f)99%Aseptic loosening: 99%
Postop: 88 (k), 85 (f)
Woo et al54 (2011)Smith & Nephew or Wright Medical112 RA patients1796210112 (179)Preop: 48 (k), 44 (f)96.8%NR
Postop: 91 (k), 82 (f)
Signorelli et al55 (2011)DePuy (PFC Sigma rotating platform knee system)72100NR2.572 (100)Preop: 53 (c), 60 (f) Postop: 95 (c), 82 (f)99%99%
Cossetto and Gouda56 (2011)DePuy (AMK Duofix)185205696157 (175)Preop: 5798.9%NR
Postop: 92
Ritter and Meneghini57 (2010)Biomet (AGC)4773592052 knees at 10 years and 24 knees at 10 and 20 yearsPreop: 56 (k), 29 (f), 31 (p) Postop: 91 (k), 76 (f), 49 (p)NR96.8%
Holloway et al58 (2010)DePuy (AMK Duofix)191216717.6191 (191)NR95%Aseptic loosening: 100%
Authors

The authors are from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (JMN, RA, JO), SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (NS, MAM), Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, New York, and the Arthroplasty Service (SFH), Mount Sinai West Hospital, New York, New York; and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery (AK, AAS, MC, RMM), Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Mr Sodhi, Dr Khlopas, Dr Sultan, Dr Harwin, and Dr Mont are previous Blue Ribbon Article Award recipients (Orthopedics, March/April 2018).

Dr Harwin was not involved in the peer review of this manuscript.

Dr Newman, Mr Sodhi, Dr Khlopas, Dr Sultan, Dr Abraham, and Dr Oh have no relevant financial relationships to disclose. Dr Chughtai is a paid consultant for Cymedica, DJ Orthopaedics, Peerwell, Performance Dynamics Inc, Reflection, and Stryker. Dr Molloy is a paid presenter for Stryker and has received research support from Zimmer. Dr Harwin is a paid consultant for Stryker. Dr Mont is a paid consultant for Abbott, Cymedica, DJ Orthopaedics, Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Ongoing Care Solutions, Orthosensor, Pacira, Performance Dynamics Inc, Stryker, and Tissue Gene; receives royalties from Microport; and holds stock in Peerwell.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Michael A. Mont, MD, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, Northwell Health, 100 E 77th St, New York, NY 10075 ( mmont@northwell.edu).

Received: December 31, 2017
Accepted: June 20, 2018
Posted Online: August 21, 2018

10.3928/01477447-20180815-05

Sign up to receive

Journal E-contents