Bone Jt Open. 2024 Apr 8;5(4):277-285. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.54.BJO-2023-0132.R1.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: The mean age of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has reduced with time. Younger patients have increased expectations following TKA. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is the most common cause of failure of TKA in the UK. Interest in cementless TKA has re-emerged due to its encouraging results in the younger patient population. We review a large series of tantalum trabecular metal cementless implants in patients who are at the highest risk of revision surgery.
METHODS: A total of 454 consecutive patients who underwent cementless TKA between August 2004 and December 2021 were reviewed. The mean follow-up was ten years. Plain radiographs were analyzed for radiolucent lines. Patients who underwent revision TKA were recorded, and the cause for revision was determined. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Island, the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey (NJR) were compared with our series.
RESULTS: No patients in our series had evidence of radiolucent lines on their latest radiological assessment. Only eight patients out of 454 required revision arthroplasty, and none of these revisions were indicated for aseptic loosening of the tibial baseplate. When compared to data from the NJR annual report, Kaplan-Meier estimates from our series (2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 5.87)) show a significant reduction in cumulative estimates of revision compared to all cemented (4.82 (95% CI 4.69 to 4.96)) or cementless TKA (5.65 (95% CI 5.23 to 6.10)). Our data (2.94 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.87)) also show lower cumulative revision rates compared to the most popular implant (PFC Sigma Cemented Knee implant fixation, 4.03 (95% CI 3.75 to 4.33)). The prosthesis time revision rate (PTIR) estimates for our series (2.07 (95% CI 0.95 to 3.83)) were lower than those of cemented cases (4.53 (95% CI 4.49 to 4.57)) from NJR.
CONCLUSION: The NexGen trabecular (tantalum) cementless implant has lower revision rates in our series compared to all cemented implants and other types of cementless implants, and its use in younger patients should be encouraged.
PMID:38583872 | DOI:10.1302/2633-1462.54.BJO-2023-0132.R1
