No Difference in Implant Micromotion Between Hybrid Fixation and Fully Cemented Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Radiostereometric Analysis of Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Bone Loss.

BACKGROUND In revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the femoral component and tibial baseplate are usually cemented. However, stems can be fixed either with cement or with a press-fit technique, with the latter resulting in hybrid fixation. There is no consensus on the preferred stem fixation technique. Therefore, we compared the stability of cemented TKA implants with the stability of TKA implants fixed with the hybrid technique in a prospective randomized trial using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). METHODS Thirty-two patients with a Type-I or II bone defect who needed revision TKA and were randomly allocated at the time of surgery into either the cemented or hybrid-fixation group were included in the study. The radiographs for the RSA were obtained during hospitalization (baseline); at 6 weeks; and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Migration of the femoral and tibial implants was measured using model-based RSA and expressed along or around the 3 orthogonal axes and as total translation (TT) and total rotation (TR). Clinical results were evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), active flexion, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain and satisfaction. Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests were used to compare migration and clinical outcomes between the cement and hybrid techniques. RESULTS At 24 months, no difference in median migration or the number of migrating components was found between the cemented and hybrid-fixation groups. In each group, approximately one-third of the tibial components had total rotation of >1°. The clinical scores did not differ between the techniques. CONCLUSIONS At 24 months after revision TKAs, cemented and hybrid-fixation replacements were equally stable. Unexpectedly, both groups had implants with >1 mm or >1° of micromotion although there were no clinical or radiographic signs of loosening. Whether these findings indicate the possibility of loosening with longer follow-up remains to be investigated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

[1]  T. Pfitzner,et al.  Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless—a meta-analysis , 2016, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[2]  A. Ranawat,et al.  Stem length in revision total knee arthroplasty , 2015, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.

[3]  W. Mihalko,et al.  Stem pain after cementless revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2015, Journal of surgical orthopaedic advances.

[4]  F. Haddad,et al.  Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2015, The bone & joint journal.

[5]  O. Furnes,et al.  Failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties , 2015, Acta orthopaedica.

[6]  P. Lachiewicz,et al.  A 30-mm Cemented Stem Extension Provides Adequate Fixation of the Tibial Component in Revision Knee Arthroplasty , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  S. Odum,et al.  Clinical & radiographic outcomes of cemented vs. diaphyseal engaging cementless stems in aseptic revision TKA. , 2014, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  Joseph W. Greene,et al.  Midterm results of hybrid cement technique in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2013, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[9]  H. Vandenneucker,et al.  Reason for Revision TKA Predicts Clinical Outcome: Prospective Evaluation of 150 Consecutive Patients With 2-years Followup , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  C. Howie,et al.  The influence of stem length and fixation on initial femoral component stability in revision total knee replacement , 2012, Bone & joint research.

[11]  J. Plevier,et al.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of 21,000 knee arthroplasties , 2012 .

[12]  A. Odgaard,et al.  Superior fixation of pegged trabecular metal over screw-fixed pegged porous titanium fiber mesh , 2011, Acta orthopaedica.

[13]  A. Rosenberg,et al.  Modified Hybrid Stem Fixation in Revision TKA is Durable at 2 to 10 Years , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  M. Tingart,et al.  Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature , 2011, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[15]  T. Fehring,et al.  Stem Fixation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2009 .

[16]  R. Bourne,et al.  Results of Press-fit Stems in Revision Knee Arthroplasties , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  R. Barrack,et al.  The effect of stem design on end-of-stem pain in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[18]  E. Roos,et al.  The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[19]  B. Bai,et al.  The effect of stem modularity and mode of fixation on tibial component stability in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  R. Barrack,et al.  Pain at the end of the stem after revision total knee arthroplasty. , 1999, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.

[21]  D. Ammeen,et al.  Classification and preoperative radiographic evaluation: knee. , 1998, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[22]  J. Galante,et al.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior-stabilized or constrained condylar prosthesis: a minimum 3-year and average 5-year follow-up study. , 1997, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[23]  J. Insall,et al.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.