Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 43, Issue 8, pp 1849–1857 | Cite as

Primary cementless total knee arthroplasty with or without stem extension: a matched comparative study of ninety eight standard stems versus ninety eight long stems after more than ten years of follow-up

  • Jean-Louis Prudhon
  • Régis Verdier
  • Jacques H. Caton
Original Paper
  • 214 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Using a cementless fixation for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is controversial. We hypothesized that cementless tibial base plate with a monoblock long stem (MLS) would provide secure tibial alignment and stable fixation when bone conditions were considered as poor for a cementless fixation. The purpose of this study was to compare the mean eight year survivorship of cementless standard keels (SK) vs cementless MLS.

Material methods

We report a matched series of 98 cases of SK and 98 cases of MLS in patients with poor bone conditions. The two cohorts were statistically compared. Revision for tibial loosening was used as the endpoint in the survivorship analysis.

Results

We recorded two cases of tibial loosening and three cases of bipolar loosening in the SK group (0% MLS vs 5% SK). No tibial loosening occurred in the MLS group (statistically significant). No tibial periprosthetic or intra-operative fractures occurred in either group. The survivorship at eight years of follow-up was 95.6% in the SS cohort vs 100% in the MLS cohort using revision for tibial loosening as the endpoint.

Discussion

This study was not randomized. Its strength was that it took into account the comparative midterm outcomes of a matched cohort of patients implanted with two types of cementless components in the same bone conditions. We did not record any tibial loosening in the MLS group. Using long stems has been criticized but we did not observe any adverse reactions and no intra-operative tibial fracture occurred.

Conclusion

MLS improves the alignment and fixation of cementless TKA. This is a safe solution when bone conditions are poor or modified by previous surgery.

Keywords

Cementless total knee arthroplasty Long stem Standard keel Survivorship at eight years Poor bone conditions 

References

  1. 1.
    NIH Consensus Panel (2003) NIH Consensus Statement on total knee replacement. December 8–10. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1328Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mont MA, Pivec R, Issa K, Kapadia BH, Maheshwari A, Harwin SF (2014) Long-term implant survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Knee Surg 27(5):369–376.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1361952 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    No authors listed. (2016) National Joint Replacement Registry. Australian Orthopaedic Association. Annual ReportGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    No authors listed. National Joint Registry for England, Wales (2016), Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 13th annual reportGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hungerford DS, Kenna RV, Krackow KA (1982) The porous-coated anatomic total knee. Orthop Clin North Am 13(1):103–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dodd CA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA (1990) Total knee arthroplasty fixation. Comparison of the early results of paired cemented versus uncemented porous coated anatomic knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990(260):66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ebert FR, Krackow KA, Lennox DW, Hungerford DS (1992) Minimum 4-year follow-up of the PCA total knee arthroplasty in rheumatoid patients. J Arthroplast 7(1):101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Epinette JA, Manley MT (2007) Hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: clinical experience at 10 to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 89(1):34–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song SJ, Bae DK, Kim KI, Lee CH (2014) Conversion total knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134(1):73–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-013-1897-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meding JB, Wing JT, Ritter MA (2011) Does high tibial osteotomy affect the success or survival of a total knee replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(7):1991–1994CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karabatsos B, Mahomed NN, Maistrelli GL (2002) Functional outcome of total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy. Can J Surg 45(2):116–119PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lim JB, Loh B, Chong HC, Tan A (2016) History of previous knee surgery does not affect the clinical outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty in an Asian population. Ann Transl Med 4(16):303CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amendola L, Fosco M, Cenni E, Tigani D (2010) Knee joint arthroplasty after tibial osteotomy. Int Orthop 34(2):289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hernigou P, Duffiet P, Julian D, Guissou I, Poignard A, Flouzat-Lachaniette CH (2013) Outcome of total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy: does malalignment jeopardize the results when using a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty? HSS J 9(2):134–137CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gupta H, Dahiya V, Vasdev A, Rajgopal A (2013) Outcomes of total knee arthroplasty following high tibial osteotomy. Indian J Orthop 47(5):469–473CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Raaij TM, Bakker W, Reijman M, Verhaar JA (2007) The effect of high tibial osteotomy on the results of total knee arthroplasty: a matched case control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 8:74CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Robertsson O, W-Dahl A (2015) The risk of revision after TKA is affected by previous HTO or UKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473(1): 90–93Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Efe T, Heyse TJ, Boese C, Timmesfeld N, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Schmitt J, Theisen C, Schofer MD (2010) TKA following high tibial osteotomy versus primary TKA-a matched pair analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11:207CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Niinimäki T, Eskelinen A, Ohtonen P, Puhto AP, Mann BS, Leppilahti J (2010) Total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy: a registry-based case-control study of 1,036 knees. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 11(207):2010Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piedade SR, Pinaroli A, Servien E, Neyret P (2013) TKA outcomes after prior bone and soft tissue knee surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(12):2737–2743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gaillard R, Cerciello S, Lustig S, Servien E, Neyret P (2017) Risk factors for tibial implant malpositioning in total knee arthroplasty – consecutive series of one thousand, four hundred and seventeen cases. Int Orthop41(4):749–756. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3307-z
  22. 22.
    Caton JH, Prudhon JL, Aslanian T, Verdier R (2016) Patellar height assessment in total knee arthroplasty: a new method. Int Orthop 40(12):2527–2531 Epub 2016 Aug 9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Prudhon JL, Caton JH, Aslanian T, Verdier R (2017) How is patella height modified after total knee arthroplasty? Int Orthop.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3539-6
  24. 24.
    Charnley J (1979) Numerical grading of clinical results. Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Springer Verlag ed. Berlin1 979. P. 20–4Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim T, Suzuki M, Ohtsuki C, Masuda K, Tamai H, Watanabe E, Osaka A, Moriya H. (2003) Enhancement of bone growth in titanium fiber mesh by surface modification with hydrogen peroxide solution containing tantalum chloride. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 64(1):19–26Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Graves S, Davidson D, Tomkins A (2010) Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Registry. Annual report, 2010. http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/documents/aoanjrrreport_2010.pdf
  27. 27.
    Ellams D, Forsyth O, Mistry A (2010) National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 7th annual-report, 2010. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/NjrCentre/Portals/0/NJR%207th%20Annual%20Report%202010
  28. 28.
    Bhimji S, Menegini RM (2012) Micromotion of cementless tibial baseplates under physiological loading conditions. J Arthroplasty 27(4):648–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nelissen RG, Valstar ER, Rozing PM (1998) The effect of hydroxyapatite on the micromotion of total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study, J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 80-A:1665–1672Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ferreira A, Aslanian T, Dalin T, Picaud J (2017) Ceramic bearings with bilayer coating in cementless total hip arthroplasty. A safe solution. A retrospective study of one hundred and twenty-six cases with more than ten years’ follow-up. Int Orthop 41(5):893–899.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-016-3271-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Petersen MM, Nielsen PT, Lebech A, Toksvig-Larsen S, Lund B (1999) Preoperative bone mineral density of the proximal tibia and migration of the tibial component after uncemented total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 14(1):77–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nilsson KG, Kärrholm J, Carlsson L, Dalén T (1999) Hydroxyapatite coating versus cemented fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty: prospective randomized comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components with 5-year follow-up using radiostereometry. J Arthroplast 14:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Whiteside LA, Viganò R (2007) Young and heavy patients with a cementless TKA do as well as older and lightweight patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:93–98PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Lim HM, Park ES (2014) Cementless and cemented total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than fifty-five years. Which is better? Int Orthop. 2014Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Beaupre LA, al-Yamani M, Huckell JR, Johnston DW (2007) Hydroxyapatite-coated tibial implants compared with cemented tibial fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty. A randomized trial of outcomes at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(10):2204–2211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cross MJ, Parish EN (2005) A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: prospective analysis of 1000 patients. J bone joint Surg [Br] 87-B:1073–1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Voigt JD, Mosier M (2011) Hydroxyapatite (HA) coating appears to be of benefit for implant durability of tibial components in primary total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 82(4):448–459CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baker PN, Khaw FM, Kirk LM, Esler NA, Gregg PJ (2007) A randomized controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(12):1608–1614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ritter MA, Meneghini RM (2010) Twenty year survivorship of cementless anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(4):507–513.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cameron HU (1995) Clinical and radiologic effects of diaphyseal stem extension in non cemented total knee replacement. Can J Surg 38(1):45–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Barlow BT, Oi KK, Lee YY, Joseph AD, Alexiades MM (2016) Incidence, indications, outcomes, and survivorship of stems in primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016 Jul 8Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mittal A, Bhosale PB, Suryawanshi AV, Purohit S. (2013) One-stage long-stem total knee arthroplasty for arthritic knees with stress fractures. J Orthop Surg 21(2):199–203Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bagsby DT, Issa K, Smith LS, Elmallah RK, Mast LE, Harwin SF, Mont MA, Bhimani SJ, Malkani AL (2016) Cemented vs cementless total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. J Arthroplast 31(8):1727–1731.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GrenobleFrance
  2. 2.Genay CedexFrance
  3. 3.Institut d’OrthopédieCaluireFrance

Personalised recommendations