Scientific Articles   |    
Hydroxyapatite-Coated Tibial Implants Compared with Cemented Tibial Fixation in Primary Total Knee ArthroplastyA Randomized Trial of Outcomes at Five Years
L.A. Beaupré, PhD, PT1; M. al-Yamani, MD1; J.R. Huckell, BSc, MDCM, FRCS(C)1; D.W.C. Johnston, MD, FRCS(C)1
1 University of Alberta, Capital Health, 1F1.52 WMC, 8440-112 Street, Edmonton, AB T6G 2B7, Canada. E-mail address for L.A. Beaupré: lauren.beaupre@capitalhealth.ca
View Disclosures and Other Information
Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from Stryker Canada, Inc. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.
Investigation performed at Capital Health, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007 Oct 01;89(10):2204-2211. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.01431
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


Background: Although excellent long-term results have been reported with cemented tibial fixation, cementless fixation as a means to improve the longevity of total knee prostheses continues to be of interest to clinicians. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes between cementless tibial fixation with hydroxyapatite and cemented tibial fixation in the first five years following primary total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized clinical trial that included eighty-one patients with noninflammatory knee arthritis who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty when they were less than seventy years of age. The subjects were randomized at the time of surgery to be treated with either cementless tibial fixation with hydroxyapatite or cemented tibial fixation. Evaluations were performed preoperatively and at six months, one year, and five years postoperatively by a physical therapist who was blinded to group allocation. Self-reported pain and function, the primary outcomes, were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the RAND 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36). Complications and revision rates were determined through a review of hospital records and at each patient evaluation. The Knee Society radiographic score was used to evaluate plain radiographs at each assessment.

Results: Seventy subjects (86%) completed the five-year assessment. Slightly more pain was reported in the hydroxyapatite group at six months as measured with both the WOMAC and the RAND-36, a difference that disappeared by one year postoperatively. No differences were seen in function, radiographic findings, or complications. No subject required revision of the tibial prosthesis during the study.

Conclusions: At five years postoperatively, there is no difference between cementless tibial fixation with hydroxyapatite and cemented tibial fixation in terms of self-reported pain, function, health-related quality of life, postoperative complications, or radiographic scores.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    PubMed Articles
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    Massachusetts - The University of Massachusetts Medical School