Literature DB >> 27209191

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

Umile Giuseppe Longo1, Mauro Ciuffreda2, Valerio D'Andrea2, Nicholas Mannering2,3, Joel Locher2, Vincenzo Denaro2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, rate of revisions and complications of all-polyethylene tibial and metal-backed tibial components in patients treated with knee arthroplasty for primary or secondary osteoarthritis.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords such as "knee", "arthroplasty", "metal-backed", and "all-polyethylene", since inception of databases to 2016, was performed.
RESULTS: Thirty-two articles, describing patients with all-polyethylene tibial or metal-backed tibial components in the setting of osteoarthritis, were included. A total of 68,202 knees in 58,942 patients were included, with an average age at surgery of 69.3 years, ranging from a mean age of 57.9-82 years. The mean KSS was 82.4 and 81.3 (n.s.), the mean KSS(F) was 73.6 and 74.9 (p = 0.04), the mean ROM was 104.5 and 104.6 (n.s.), and the mean HSS was 87 and 86, each, respectively, for the metal-backed tibial components group and all-polyethylene tibial components group. The overall rate of revisions was 1.90 %. The rate of revision in the metal-backed tibial components group was 1.85 %, whilst the rate of revision in the all-polyethylene tibial components group was 2.02 % (p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSION: Metal-backed tibial and all-polyethylene tibial components did not show any significant difference in most of the included outcome scores, but statistical differences were found in terms of complications and revision rate. These items have a negative impact on the cost-effectiveness of all-polyethylene tibial components. Even if all-polyethylene tibial components show similar clinical outcome score, equivalent range of knee motion, and long-term survival compared to metal-backed tibial components, complications and revision rate seem to lead the surgeon to prefer the last ones. The clinical relevance of this study is that metal-backed tibial components should be preferred in TKA surgery because complications are higher using all-polyethylene tibial components. On the other hand, the quality of evidence, according to GRADE system, is low underling the necessity of more randomised study to clarify these items. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Keywords:  All-polyethylene; Complication; Metal-backed; Revision; Total knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27209191     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4168-0

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


  44 in total

1.  All-polyethylene versus metal-backed and stemmed tibial components in cemented total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomised RSA study.

Authors:  G Adalberth; K G Nilsson; S Byström; K Kolstad; J Milbrink
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-08

2.  Total knee arthroplasty in elderly patients. Comparison of tibial component designs.

Authors:  J L L'Insalata; S H Stern; J N Insall
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Clinical comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  D M Apel; J M Tozzi; L D Dorr
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  All-Polyethylene Versus Metal-Backed Tibial Components-An Analysis of 27,733 Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Replacements from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Asgeir Gudnason; Nils P Hailer; Annette W-Dahl; Martin Sundberg; Otto Robertsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  D E Font-Rodriguez; G R Scuderi; J N Insall
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee.

Authors:  J R B Hutt; P Farhadnia; V Massé; M LaVigne; P-A Vendittoli
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  All-polyethylene tibial components are not inferior to metal-backed tibial components in long-term follow-up of knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Mustafa Yassin; Avraham Garti; Moshe Weissbrot; Uzi Ashkenazi; Muhammed Khatib; Dror Robinson
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-05-26

8.  Onlay tibial implants appear to provide superior clinical results in robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Brian P Gladnick; Denis Nam; Saker Khamaisy; Sophia Paul; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2014-11-15

9.  Effect of knee component alignment on tibial load distribution with clinical correlation.

Authors:  H P Hsu; A Garg; P S Walker; M Spector; F C Ewald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Cemented all polyethylene tibial components in patients age 75 years and older.

Authors:  M W Pagnano; B A Levy; D J Berry
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  8 in total

1.  Midflexion instability in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Vincenzo Candela; Francesco Pirato; Michael T Hirschmann; Roland Becker; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Metaphyseal cones and sleeves are similar in improving short- and mid-term outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty revisions.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Sergio De Salvatore; Giovanni Intermesoli; Francesco Pirato; Ilaria Piergentili; Roland Becker; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  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

Review 4.  Cemented all-poly tibia in resource constrained country, affordable and cost-effective care. Is it applicable at this era? Review article.

Authors:  Vickash Kumar; Obada Hasan; Masood Umer; Naveed Baloch
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2019-09-27

5.  All-polyethylene versus metal-backed posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: similar 2-year results of a randomized radiostereometric analysis study.

Authors:  Shaho Hasan; Perla J Marang-Van De Mheen; Bart L Kaptein; Rob G H H Nelissen; Sören Toksvig-Larsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  Late stabilization after initial migration in patients undergoing cemented total knee arthroplasty: a 5-year followup of 2 randomized controlled trials using radiostereometric analysis.

Authors:  Shaho Hasan; Bart L Kaptein; Perla J Marang-van de Mheen; Koen T Van Hamersveld; Rob G H H Nelissen; Sören Toksvig-Larsen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2022-01-24       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Three-dimensional knee kinematic analysis during treadmill gait: Slow imposed speed versus normal self-selected speed.

Authors:  N Mannering; T Young; T Spelman; P F Choong
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.853

Review 8.  Migration of the femoral component and clinical outcomes after total knee replacement: a narrative review.

Authors:  R Zinno; S Di Paolo; G Ambrosino; D Alesi; S Zaffagnini; G Barone; L Bragonzoni
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2020-12-14
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.