Comparable incidence of periprosthetic tibial fractures in cementless and cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Abstract Purpose (I) To determine the incidence of periprosthetic tibial fractures in cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and (II) to summarize the existing evidence on characteristics and risk factors of periprosthetic fractures in UKA. Methods Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase databases were comprehensively searched. Any clinical, laboratory or case report study describing information on proportion, characteristics or risk factors of periprosthetic tibial fractures in UKA was included. Proportion meta-analysis was performed to estimate the incidence of fractures only using data from clinical studies. Information on characteristics and risk factors was evaluated and summarized. Results A total of 81 studies were considered to be eligible for inclusion. Based on 41 clinical studies, incidences of fractures were 1.24% (95%CI 0.64–2.41) for cementless and 1.58% (95%CI 1.06–2.36) for cemented UKAs (9451 UKAs). The majority of fractures in the current literature occurred during surgery or presented within 3 months postoperatively (91 of 127; 72%) and were non-traumatic (95 of 113; 84%). Six different fracture types were observed in 21 available radiographs. Laboratory studies revealed that an excessive interference fit (press fit), excessive tibial bone resection, a sagittal cut too deep posteriorly and low bone mineral density (BMD) reduce the force required for a periprosthetic tibial fracture to occur. Clinical studies showed that periprosthetic tibial fractures were associated with increased body mass index and postoperative alignment angles, advanced age, decreased BMD, female gender, and a very overhanging medial tibial condyle. Conclusion Comparable low incidences of periprosthetic tibial fractures in cementless and cemented UKA can be achieved. However, surgeons should be aware that an excessive interference fit in cementless UKAs in combination with an impaction technique may introduce an additional risk, and could therefore be less forgiving to surgical errors and patients who are at higher risk of periprosthetic tibial fractures. Level of evidence V.