Hasan R Mohammad1,2, Garrett S Bullock3, James A Kennedy3, Stephen J Mellon3, David Murray3, Andrew Judge3,4. 1. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. hasanmohammad@doctors.org.uk. 2. Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Level 1 Learning and Research Building, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, Westbury-On-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. hasanmohammad@doctors.org.uk. 3. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. 4. Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Level 1 Learning and Research Building, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, Westbury-On-Trym, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report and compare the long-term revision rate, revision indications and patient reported outcome measures of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). METHODS: Databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all UKR studies reporting the ≥ 10 year clinical outcomes. Revision rates per 100 component years [% per annum (% pa)] were calculated by fixation type and then, subgroup analyses for fixed and mobile bearing UKRs were performed. Mechanisms of failure and patient reported outcome measures are reported. RESULTS: 25 studies were eligible for inclusion with a total of 10,736 UKRs, in which there were 8790 cemented and 1946 cementless knee replacements. The revision rate was 0.73% pa (CI 0.66-0.80) and 0.45% pa (CI 0.34-0.58) per 100 component years, respectively, with the cementless having a significantly (p < 0.001) lower overall revision rate. Therefore, based on these studies, the expected 10-year survival of cementless UKR would be 95.5% and cemented 92.7%. Subgroup analysis revealed this difference remained significant for the Oxford UKR (0.37% pa vs 0.77% pa, p < 0.001), but for non-Oxford UKRs there were no significant differences in revision rates of cemented and cementless UKRs (0.57% pa vs 0.69% pa, p = 0.41). Mobile bearing UKRs had significantly lower revision rates than fixed bearing UKRs in cementless (p = 0.001), but not cemented groups (p = 0.13). Overall the revision rates for aseptic loosening and disease progression were significantly lower (p = 0.02 and p = 0.009 respectively) in the cementless group compared to the cemented group (0.06 vs 0.13% pa and 0.10 vs 0.21% pa respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cementless fixation had reduced long-term revision rates compared to cemented for the Oxford UKR. For the non-Oxford UKRs, the revision rates of cementless and cemented fixation types were equivalent. Therefore, cementless UKRs offer at least equivalent if not lower revision rates compared to cemented UKRs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report and compare the long-term revision rate, revision indications and patient reported outcome measures of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). METHODS: Databases Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all UKR studies reporting the ≥ 10 year clinical outcomes. Revision rates per 100 component years [% per annum (% pa)] were calculated by fixation type and then, subgroup analyses for fixed and mobile bearing UKRs were performed. Mechanisms of failure and patient reported outcome measures are reported. RESULTS: 25 studies were eligible for inclusion with a total of 10,736 UKRs, in which there were 8790 cemented and 1946 cementless knee replacements. The revision rate was 0.73% pa (CI 0.66-0.80) and 0.45% pa (CI 0.34-0.58) per 100 component years, respectively, with the cementless having a significantly (p < 0.001) lower overall revision rate. Therefore, based on these studies, the expected 10-year survival of cementless UKR would be 95.5% and cemented 92.7%. Subgroup analysis revealed this difference remained significant for the Oxford UKR (0.37% pa vs 0.77% pa, p < 0.001), but for non-Oxford UKRs there were no significant differences in revision rates of cemented and cementless UKRs (0.57% pa vs 0.69% pa, p = 0.41). Mobile bearing UKRs had significantly lower revision rates than fixed bearing UKRs in cementless (p = 0.001), but not cemented groups (p = 0.13). Overall the revision rates for aseptic loosening and disease progression were significantly lower (p = 0.02 and p = 0.009 respectively) in the cementless group compared to the cemented group (0.06 vs 0.13% pa and 0.10 vs 0.21% pa respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cementless fixation had reduced long-term revision rates compared to cemented for the Oxford UKR. For the non-Oxford UKRs, the revision rates of cementless and cemented fixation types were equivalent. Therefore, cementless UKRs offer at least equivalent if not lower revision rates compared to cemented UKRs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.