Background: In revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the femoral component and tibial baseplate are usually cemented. However, stems can be fixed either with cement or with a press-fit technique, with the latter resulting in hybrid fixation. There is no consensus on the preferred stem fixation technique. Therefore, we compared the stability of cemented TKA implants with the stability of TKA implants fixed with the hybrid technique in a prospective randomized trial using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).
Methods: Thirty-two patients with a Type-I or II bone defect who needed revision TKA and were randomly allocated at the time of surgery into either the cemented or hybrid-fixation group were included in the study. The radiographs for the RSA were obtained during hospitalization (baseline); at 6 weeks; and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Migration of the femoral and tibial implants was measured using model-based RSA and expressed along or around the 3 orthogonal axes and as total translation (TT) and total rotation (TR). Clinical results were evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), active flexion, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain and satisfaction. Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests were used to compare migration and clinical outcomes between the cement and hybrid techniques.
Results: At 24 months, no difference in median migration or the number of migrating components was found between the cemented and hybrid-fixation groups. In each group, approximately one-third of the tibial components had total rotation of >1°. The clinical scores did not differ between the techniques.
Conclusions: At 24 months after revision TKAs, cemented and hybrid-fixation replacements were equally stable. Unexpectedly, both groups had implants with >1 mm or >1° of micromotion although there were no clinical or radiographic signs of loosening. Whether these findings indicate the possibility of loosening with longer follow-up remains to be investigated.
Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Investigation performed at the Departments of Orthopaedics and Research, Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
Disclosure: The institution of the authors received funding for this study from Smith & Nephew (Memphis, Tennessee), the manufacturer of the device used in this study. Smith & Nephew had no role in interpretation or reporting of the results of the study. On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked “yes” to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relationship in the biomedical arena outside the submitted work; “yes” to indicate that the author had a patent and/or copyright, planned, pending, or issued, broadly relevant to this work; and “yes” to indicate that the author had other relationships or activities that could be perceived to influence, or have the potential to influence, what was written in this work.
- Copyright © 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
Enter your JBJS login information below.
Please note that your username is the email address you provided when you registered.