Efficacy of cementless porous tantalum tibial components versus cemented tibial components in primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Total knee arthroplasty involves the use of cemented tibial components for fixation. In recent years, cementless porous tantalum tibial components have been increasingly utilized. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of cementless porous tantalum tibial components with traditional cemented tibial components in terms of postoperative outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. Methods: Relevant literature was retrieved from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using the search terms “(trabecular metal OR Porous tantalum)” AND “knee” up to July 2023. The weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval was used as the effect size measure to evaluate the functional recovery of the knee joint, radiological analysis, complications, and implant revisions between cementless porous tantalum tibial components and traditional cemented tibial components after total knee arthroplasty. Review Manager 5.3 was utilized to conduct a comparative analysis of all included studies. Results: Nine studies with a total of 1117 patients were included in this meta-analysis, consisting of 447 patients in the porous tantalum group and 670 patients in the cemented group. Radiological analysis demonstrated that the porous tantalum group had better outcomes than the cemented group (P < .05). The combined results for the 5-year and 10-year follow-ups, range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, complications, and implant revisions showed no significant differences between the porous tantalum and cemented groups. Conclusion: The results of the 5-year and 10-year follow-ups indicate that the use of cementless porous tantalum tibial components is comparable to traditional cemented tibial components, with no significant advantages observed. However, at the 5-year follow-up, the porous tantalum group demonstrated a good bone density in the proximal tibia. Future studies with a larger sample size, long-term clinical follow-up, and radiological results are needed to verify the differences between the 2 implants.