Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements: a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry

Abstract

Background and purpose: While registry studies have suggested a higher risk of revision for posterior-stabilized (PS) compared with posterior cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacements (TKR) using cement, it is unknown whether this is also the case for uncemented TKR. We aimed to compare the revision rates of PS and CR designs in patients receiving primary uncemented TKR.Patients and methods: Data from the Dutch arthroplasty register (LROI) was analyzed, comprising 12,226 uncemented primary CR TKRs and 750 uncemented PS TKRs registered between 2007 and 2022. Competing risk and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare revision rates, risks of revision, and reasons for revision between groups. Sensitivity analyses were performed to analyze the risk, concerning the 5 most commonly used implants and performing hospitals for each group.Results: Uncemented PS TKRs had higher 10-year revision rates for any reason and aseptic loosening (6.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6–9.2 and 3.9%, CI 2.6–6.7) compared with uncemented CR TKRs (4.2%, CI 3.8–4.7 and 1.4%, CI 1.2–1.7). PS TKRs were 1.4 and 2.5 times more likely to be revised for any reason and aseptic loosening, respectively. These results remained consistent after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, previous surgeries, bearing mobility, and surface modification, with sensitivity analyses.Conclusion: We found that uncemented PS implants have a higher rate of revision than uncemented CR implants, mainly due to a higher risk of aseptic loosening.