Dataset Information

Continued stabilization of trabecular metal tibial monoblock total knee arthroplasty components at 5 years-measured with radiostereometric analysis.

ABSTRACT: The trabecular metal tibial monoblock component (TM) is a relatively new option available for total knee arthroplasty. We have previously reported a large degree of early migration of the trabecular metal component in a subset of patients. These implants all appeared to stabilize at 2 years. We now present 5-year RSA results of the TM and compare them with those of the NexGen Option Stemmed cemented tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw IN).70 patients with osteoarthritis were randomized to receive either the TM implant or the cemented component. RSA examination was done postoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years. RSA outcomes were translations, rotations, and maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the components. MTPM values were used to classify implants as "at risk" or "stable".At the 5-year follow-up, 45 patients were available for analysis. There were 27 in the TM group and 18 in the cemented group. MTPM values were similar in the 2 groups (p = 0.9). The TM components had significantly greater subsidence than the cemented components (p = 0.001). The proportion of "at risk" components at 5 years was 2 of 18 in the cemented group and 0 of 27 in the TM group (p = 0.2).In the previous 2-year report, we expressed our uncertainty concerning the long-term stability of the TM implant due to the high initial migration seen in some cases. Here, we report stability of this implant up to 5 years in all cases. The implant appears to achieve solid fixation despite high levels of migration initially.

SUBMITTER: Wilson DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3278655 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Continued stabilization of trabecular metal tibial monoblock total knee arthroplasty components at 5 years-measured with radiostereometric analysis.

Wilson David A J DA Richardson Glen G Hennigar Allan W AW Dunbar Michael J MJ

Acta orthopaedica 20111229 1

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>The trabecular metal tibial monoblock component (TM) is a relatively new option available for total knee arthroplasty. We have previously reported a large degree of early migration of the trabecular metal component in a subset of patients. These implants all appeared to stabilize at 2 years. We now present 5-year RSA results of the TM and compare them with those of the NexGen Option Stemmed cemented tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw IN).<h4>Patients and methods</h4> ...[more]

PMID: 22206447

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty involves the use of cemented tibial components for fixation. In recent years, cementless porous tantalum tibial components have been increasingly utilized. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of cementless porous tantalum tibial components with traditional cemented tibial components in terms of postoperative outcomes following total knee arthroplasty.MethodsRelevant literature was retrieved from Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using the search terms "(trabecular metal OR Porous tantalum)" AND "knee" up to July 2023. The weighted mean difference with a 95% confidence interval was used as the effect size measure to evaluate the functional recovery of the knee joint, radiological analysis, complications, and implant revisions between cementless porous tantalum tibial components and traditional cemented tibial components after total knee arthroplasty. Review Manager 5.3 was utilized to conduct a comparative analysis of all included studies.ResultsNine studies with a total of 1117 patients were included in this meta-analysis, consisting of 447 patients in the porous tantalum group and 670 patients in the cemented group. Radiological analysis demonstrated that the porous tantalum group had better outcomes than the cemented group (P < .05). The combined results for the 5-year and 10-year follow-ups, range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, complications, and implant revisions showed no significant differences between the porous tantalum and cemented groups.ConclusionThe results of the 5-year and 10-year follow-ups indicate that the use of cementless porous tantalum tibial components is comparable to traditional cemented tibial components, with no significant advantages observed. However, at the 5-year follow-up, the porous tantalum group demonstrated a good bone density in the proximal tibia. Future studies with a larger sample size, long-term clinical follow-up, and radiological results are needed to verify the differences between the 2 implants.

Project description:Background and purpose - Backside wear of the polyethylene insert in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can produce clinically significant levels of polyethylene debris, which can lead to loosening of the tibial component. Loosening due to polyethylene debris could theoretically be reduced in tibial components of monoblock polyethylene design, as there is no backside wear. We investigated the effect of 2 different tibial component designs, monoblock and modular polyethylene, on migration of the tibial component in uncemented TKA. Patients and methods - In this randomized study, 53 patients (mean age 61 years), 32 in the monoblock group and 33 in the modular group, were followed for 2 years. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) was done postoperatively after weight bearing and after 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. The primary endpoint of the study was comparison of the tibial component migration (expressed as maximum total point motion (MTPM)) of the 2 different implant designs. Results - We did not find any statistically significant difference in MTPM between the groups at 3 months (p = 0.2) or at 6 months (p = 0.1), but at 12 and 24 months of follow-up there was a significant difference in MTPM of 0.36?mm (p = 0.02) and 0.42?mm (p = 0.02) between groups, with the highest amount of migration (1.0?mm) in the modular group. The difference in continuous migration (MTPM from 12 and 24 months) between the groups was 0.096?mm (p = 0.5), and when comparing MTPM from 3-24 months, the difference between the groups was 0.23?mm (p = 0.07). Interpretation - In both study groups, we found the early migration pattern expected, with a relatively high initial amount of migration from operation to 3 months of follow-up, followed by stabilization of the implant with little migration thereafter. However, the modular implants had a statistically significantly higher degree of migration compared to the monoblock. We believe that the greater stiffness of the modular implants was the main reason for the difference in migration, but an initial creep in the polyethylene metal-back locking mechanism of the modular group could also be a possible explanation for the observed difference in migration between the 2 study groups.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear whether there is a clinical benefit to adding hydroxyapatite (HA) coatings to total knee implants, especially with the tibial component, where failure of the implant more often occurs. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to identify all prospective randomized trials for determining whether the overall clinical results (as a function of durability, function, and adverse events) favored HA-coated tibial components.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed for the years 1990 to September 16, 2010. We restricted our search to randomized controlled trials involving participants receiving either an HA-coated tibia or other forms of tibial fixation. The primary outcome measures evaluated were durability, function, and acute adverse events.ResultsData from 926 evaluable primary total knee implants in 14 studies were analyzed. Using an RSA definition for durability, HA-coated tibial components (porous or press-fit) without screw fixation were less likely to be unstable at 2 years than porous and cemented metal-backed tibial components (RR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.98; p = 0.04, I(2) = 39%, M-H random effects model). There was no significant difference in durability, as measured from revision and evaluated at 2 and 8-10 years, between groups. Also, functional status using different validated measures showed no significant difference at 2 and 5 years, no matter what measure was used. Lastly, there was no significant difference in adverse events. Limitations included small numbers of evaluable patients (? 50) in 7 of the 14 trials identified, and a lack of "hard" evidence of durability with need for replacement (i.e. frank failure, pain, or loss of functionality).InterpretationIn patients > 65 years of age, an HA-coated tibial implant may provide better durability than other forms of tibial fixation. Larger trials should be undertaken comparing the long-term durability, function, and adverse events of HA-coated implants with those of other porous-coated tibial implants in younger, more active OA patients.

Project description:BackgroundPreviously, the authors modified the surgical technique to preserve tibial bone mass for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes and values of this modified technique.MethodsClinical data of 34 consecutive patients who underwent the unilateral modified UKA technique (modified group, 34 knees) were retrospectively analyzed. To compare the outcome, a match-paired control group (conventional group, 34 knees) of an equal number of patients using the conventional technique system in the same period were selected and matched with respect to diagnosis, age, pre-operative range of motion (ROM), and radiological grade of knee arthrosis. Clinical outcomes including knee Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, ROM, and complications were compared between the two groups. Post-operative radiographic assessments included hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA), joint line change, implant position, and alignment.ResultsThe mean follow-up time was 38.2 ± 6.3 months. There was no difference in baseline between the two groups. The amount of proximal tibial bone cut in the modified group was significantly less than that of the conventional group (4.7 ± 1.1 mm vs. 6.7 ± 1.3 mm, t = 6.45, P < 0.001). Joint line was elevated by 2.1 ± 1.0 mm in the modified group compared with -0.5 ± 1.7 mm in the conventional group (t = -7.46, P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two groups after UKA with respect to HSS score, VAS score, ROM, and HKA. Additionally, the accuracy of the post-operative implant position and alignment was similar in both groups. As for implant size, the tibial implant size in the modified group was larger than that in the conventional group (χ = 4.95, P = 0.035).ConclusionsThe modified technique for tibial bone sparing was comparable with the conventional technique in terms of clinical outcomes and radiographic assessments. It can preserve tibial bone mass and achieve a larger cement surface on the tibial side.

Dataset Information

Continued stabilization of trabecular metal tibial monoblock total knee arthroplasty components at 5 years-measured with radiostereometric analysis.

Publications

Continued stabilization of trabecular metal tibial monoblock total knee arthroplasty components at 5 years-measured with radiostereometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets