Literature DB >> 19571080

All-polyethylene compared with metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty at ten years. A prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Karen A Bettinson1, Ian M Pinder, Chris G Moran, David J Weir, Elizabeth A Lingard.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several studies have described equivalent performance on radiostereometric analysis at two years for metal-backed compared with all-polyethylene stemmed tibial implants. The purpose of this study was to determine the ten-year survivorship results of these two designs from a large randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: Patients who were fifty years old or more, with no history of infection, and were undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty were randomized at the time of surgery to receive either an all-polyethylene or a metal-backed tibial component. Patients were assessed preoperatively and at one, three, five, eight, and ten years postoperatively. All assessments included a clinical history, a physical examination, and a radiographic evaluation. A total of 510 consecutive patients (566 knees) were recruited from August 1993 to January 1997. The mean age of the patients at the time of the index arthroplasty was 69.3 years, and 299 (59%) were women. The primary diagnosis was osteoarthritis for 458 knees (80.9%) and rheumatoid arthritis for 108 knees (19.1%).
RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-three patients returned for the ten-year follow-up evaluation. A total of twenty-eight knees had been revised. Ten-year survivorship, with revision for any reason (or the time at which patients were documented as requiring revision but were unfit for surgery) as the end point, was 94.5% (95% confidence interval, 90.4% to 96.8%) for the all-polyethylene design and 96% (95% confidence interval, 92.6% to 97.8%) for the metal-backed design. Ten-year survivorship, with aseptic failure as the end point, was 97% (95% confidence interval, 93.3% to 98.7%) for the all-polyethylene design and 96.8% (95% confidence interval, 93.6% to 98.4%) for the metal-backed design. On the basis of the numbers available at ten years, there was no significant difference in survivorship between the two designs (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The long-term results demonstrate excellent survivorship, with revision as the end point, for both the metal-backed and the all-polyethylene tibial component designs with no differences noted between the two.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19571080     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.01427

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  13 in total

Review 1.  Tibial component designs in primary total knee arthroplasty: should we reconsider all-polyethylene component?

Authors:  Tao Cheng; Xiaoyun Pan; Tao Liu; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-10-05       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Do "premium" joint implants add value?: analysis of high cost joint implants in a community registry.

Authors:  Terence J Gioe; Amit Sharma; Penny Tatman; Susan Mehle
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Modular versus nonmodular tibial inserts in total knee arthroplasty: what are the differences?

Authors:  Asim M Makhdom; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-05

4.  All-polyethylene tibial components in obese patients are associated with low failure at midterm followup.

Authors:  David F Dalury; Kimberly K Tucker; Todd C Kelley
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  All-polyethylene tibial components are equal to metal-backed components: systematic review and meta-regression.

Authors:  Klaas Auke Nouta; Wiebe C Verra; Bart G Pijls; Jan W Schoones; Rob G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-09-13       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Trabecular metal in total knee arthroplasty associated with higher knee scores: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mariano Fernandez-Fairen; Daniel Hernández-Vaquero; Antonio Murcia; Ana Torres; Rafael Llopis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components are equivalent with BMI of less than 37.5.

Authors:  Jared Toman; Richard Iorio; William L Healy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Mauro Ciuffreda; Valerio D'Andrea; Nicholas Mannering; Joel Locher; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: all-poly versus metal-backed tibial component-a long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Vincenzo Sessa; Umberto Celentano
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene tibial components in primary total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tao Cheng; Guoyou Zhang; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.