Comparison of the early postoperative outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Author:

Bayoumi Tarik12ORCID,Burger Joost A.23ORCID,van der List Jelle P.2ORCID,Sierevelt Inger N.45,Spekenbrink-Spooren Anneke6ORCID,Pearle Andrew D.1ORCID,Kerkhoffs Gino M. M. J.2ORCID,Zuiderbaan Hendrik A.7ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Hospital for Special Surgery, Sports Medicine Institute, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA

2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

3. Charité – Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität, Berlin, Germany

4. Xpert Clinics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

5. Spaarne Gasthuis Academy, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

6. Dutch National Arthroplasty Registry (LROI), 's-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

7. Medical Clinic Velsen, Velsen-Noord, The Netherlands

Abstract

AimsThe primary objective of this registry-based study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the first postoperative year. The secondary objective was to assess one- and three-year implant survival of both fixation techniques.MethodsWe analyzed 10,862 cementless and 7,917 cemented UKA cases enrolled in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry, operated between 2017 and 2021. Pre- to postoperative change in outcomes at six and 12 months’ follow-up were compared using mixed model analyses. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were applied to quantify differences in implant survival. Adjustments were made for patient-specific variables and annual hospital volume.ResultsChange from baseline in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and activity-related pain was comparable between groups. Adjustment for covariates demonstrated a minimally greater decrease in rest-related pain in the cemented group (β = -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to -0.01)). Cementless fixation was associated with a higher probability of achieving an excellent OKS outcome (> 41 points) (adjusted odds ratio 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). The likelihood of one-year implant survival was greater for cemented implants (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.71)), with higher revision rates for periprosthetic fractures of cementless implants. During two to three years’ follow-up, the likelihood of implant survival was non-significantly greater for cementless UKA (adjusted HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.04)), primarily due to increased revision rates for tibial loosening of cemented implants.ConclusionCementless and cemented medial UKA led to comparable improvement in physical function and pain reduction during the initial postoperative year, albeit with a greater likelihood of achieving excellent OKS outcomes after cementless UKA. Anticipated differences in early physical function and pain should not be a decisive factor in the choice of fixation technique. However, surgeons should consider the differences in short- and long-term implant survival when deciding which implant to use.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):401–410.

Publisher

British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery

Reference34 articles.

1. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, an enigma, and the ten enigmas of medial UKA;Mittal;J Orthop Traumatol,2020

2. Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review;Kleeblad;Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc,2018

3. The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial;Beard;Lancet,2019

4. The lifetime revision risk of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty;Tay;Bone Joint J,2022

5. Ben-Shlomo Y , Blom A , Clark E . National Joint Registry (NJR) 18th Annual Report , London, UK : National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man . 2021 . https://www.hqip.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/njr-18th-annual-report-2021.pdf ( date last accessed 16 April 2024 ).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3