Literature DB >> 24337525

Similar survival between uncemented and cemented fixation prostheses in total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic comparative analysis using registers.

Hongchuan Wang1, Hua Lou, Huiwei Zhang, Junwei Jiang, Kai Liu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether uncemented total knee arthroplasty performs as well as cemented total knee arthroplasty.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, and major orthopaedic journals. This search was performed for the years from 1980 to the present. Randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing cemented and uncemented fixation were identified. Effective data were pooled for meta-analysis. A systematic search was carried out using the EFORT website to identify the relevant arthroplasty registers.
RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. The combined odds ratio for failure of the implant due to aseptic loosening for the uncemented group over 5 and 10 years were 3.41 (p = 0.0001) and 4.73 (p = 0.0002), respectively. Subgroup analysis of data when design-related failed total knee arthroplasty (TKA)s were excluded showed no difference between the groups for odds of aseptic loosening (n.s.). There was no difference between the groups with respect to infection (n.s.). Pooled outcome of register data revealed that uncemented knees had a higher revision rate than cemented knees.
CONCLUSIONS: The important finding from the current study is that there is no evidence to support that fixation techniques alone affect the durability of a total knee arthroplasty when design-related failure in TKAs was excluded. The way of fixation is not relevant to the incidence of infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24337525     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2806-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  21 in total

Review 1.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; Jonathan J Deeks; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

Review 2.  What is the evidence for total knee arthroplasty in young patients?: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  James A Keeney; Selena Eunice; Gail Pashos; Rick W Wright; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09-03       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Survival analysis of an asymmetric primary total knee replacement: a European multicenter prospective study.

Authors:  C Delaunay; G Blatter; J-P Canciani; D L Jones; P Laffargue; H W Neumann; G Pap; C Perka; M J Sutcliff; H Zippel
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2010-10-08       Impact factor: 2.256

4.  Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision.

Authors:  Kevin J Mulhall; Hassan M Ghomrawi; Sean Scully; John J Callaghan; Khaled J Saleh
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Survival and clinical function of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total knee replacement: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  R Gandhi; D Tsvetkov; J R Davey; N N Mahomed
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-07

6.  Simultaneous cemented and cementless total knee replacement in the same patients: a prospective comparison of long-term outcomes using an identical design of NexGen prosthesis.

Authors:  J-W Park; Y-H Kim
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2011-11

7.  Factors affecting the durability of primary total knee prostheses.

Authors:  James A Rand; Robert T Trousdale; Duane M Ilstrup; W Scott Harmsen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty. A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases.

Authors:  Esa Jämsen; Heini Huhtala; Timo Puolakka; Teemu Moilanen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030.

Authors:  Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin Ong; Ke Zhao; Michael Kelly; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Cement versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  G P Duffy; D J Berry; J A Rand
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  12 in total

1.  Comparable outcomes after total knee arthroplasty in patients under 55 years than in older patients: a matched prospective study with minimum follow-up of 10 years.

Authors:  Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla; Daniel Martinez-Mendez; Francisco A Miralles-Muñoz; Luis Marco-Gómez; Fernando A Lopez-Prats
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-12-27       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  No difference between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty in young patients: a review of the evidence.

Authors:  Edoardo Franceschetti; Guglielmo Torre; Alessio Palumbo; Rocco Papalia; Jón Karlsson; Olufemi R Ayeni; Kristian Samuelsson; Francesco Franceschi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-03-22       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  The incidence of implant fractures after knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Magdalena M Gilg; Christian W Zeller; Lukas Leitner; Andreas Leithner; Gerold Labek; Patrick Sadoghi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  No differences in cost-effectiveness and short-term functional outcomes between cemented and uncemented total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  R Rassir; P A Nolte; J C T van der Lugt; R G H H Nelissen; I N Sierevelt; W C Verra
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Influence of Fixation Methods on Prosthetic Joint Infection Following Primary Total Knee Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Observational Cohort and Randomised Intervention Studies.

Authors:  Setor K Kunutsor; Vikki Wylde; Michael R Whitehouse; Andrew D Beswick; Erik Lenguerrand; Ashley W Blom
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 6.  Cemented vs. cementless fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anoop K Prasad; Jaimee H S Tan; Hany S Bedair; Sebastian Dawson-Bowling; Sammy A Hanna
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2020-11-13

Review 7.  Long-term effects of cemented and cementless fixations of total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Cheng Chen; Yanyan Shi; Zhanpo Wu; Zengxin Gao; Youmin Chen; Changzheng Guo; Xianguo Bao
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-10-12       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Design and rationale of the ATtune Knee Outcome Study (ATKOS): multicenter prospective evaluation of a novel uncemented rotating platform knee system.

Authors:  Rachid Rassir; Inger N Sierevelt; Marjolein Schager; Peter A Nolte
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Quality assessment of systematic reviews on total hip or knee arthroplasty using mod-AMSTAR.

Authors:  Xinyu Wu; Huan Sun; Xiaoqin Zhou; Ji Wang; Jing Li
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  Hydroxyapatite-coated implants provide better fixation in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Tamara Horváth; Lilla Hanák; Péter Hegyi; Edina Butt; Margit Solymár; Ákos Szűcs; Orsolya Varga; Bui Quoc Thien; Zsolt Szakács; Endre Csonka; Petra Hartmann
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.