High Early Failure Rate of a Novel Cementless Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Todd E Bertrand, Zackary O Bryd, Keith R Berend, David A Crawford, Adolph V Lombardi
{"title":"High Early Failure Rate of a Novel Cementless Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.","authors":"Todd E Bertrand, Zackary O Bryd, Keith R Berend, David A Crawford, Adolph V Lombardi","doi":"10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an accepted treatment for antero-medial osteoarthritis with low overall failure rates. In the United States, cementation remains the gold standard of implant fixation; however, multiple studies have shown potential benefits of increased survivorship with cementless fixation. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of a novel cementless medial UKA implant. We hypothesized the cementless UKA would perform as well as or better than the cemented UKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Clinical outcomes, including patient-reported outcome measures, were prospectively collected for 111 patients (127 knees) implanted with a novel cementless UKA from February 2021 to December 2022. Radiographic lucency zones surrounding the femoral and tibial components were evaluated from postoperative radiographs. Data was collected preoperatively and at standard postoperative intervals until final follow-up or implant revision. Revisions were necessary in 15 of 127 UKAs (11.8%) at a mean of 0.9 years (range, zero to two).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The most common revision reason was aseptic loosening (12). Kaplan-Meier survival was 84.0% (95% CI [confidence interval] ±3.98%) at 2.4 years. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) 12-month scores differed significantly between revision and non-revision groups (61.9, 95% CI ±13.4 versus 75.1, 95% CI ±16.9; P = 0.01). In patients revised for aseptic loosening, 11 of 12 tibial implants had progressive radiolucent lines on pre-revision imaging. Revision operative records noted minimal to no bone ingrowth on the tibial implant undersurface.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This novel cementless medial UKA implant demonstrated a high rate of early revision, mostly for tibial-sided complications. Compared to non-revised implants, revised implants had higher rates of tibial and femoral radiolucencies on postoperative radiographs as well as lower KOOS JR 12-month scores pre-revision. When recorded in the operative record, no significant bone ingrowth was seen on the porous implant surfaces.</p>","PeriodicalId":51077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arthroplasty","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.010","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an accepted treatment for antero-medial osteoarthritis with low overall failure rates. In the United States, cementation remains the gold standard of implant fixation; however, multiple studies have shown potential benefits of increased survivorship with cementless fixation. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of a novel cementless medial UKA implant. We hypothesized the cementless UKA would perform as well as or better than the cemented UKA.

Methods: Clinical outcomes, including patient-reported outcome measures, were prospectively collected for 111 patients (127 knees) implanted with a novel cementless UKA from February 2021 to December 2022. Radiographic lucency zones surrounding the femoral and tibial components were evaluated from postoperative radiographs. Data was collected preoperatively and at standard postoperative intervals until final follow-up or implant revision. Revisions were necessary in 15 of 127 UKAs (11.8%) at a mean of 0.9 years (range, zero to two).

Results: The most common revision reason was aseptic loosening (12). Kaplan-Meier survival was 84.0% (95% CI [confidence interval] ±3.98%) at 2.4 years. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) 12-month scores differed significantly between revision and non-revision groups (61.9, 95% CI ±13.4 versus 75.1, 95% CI ±16.9; P = 0.01). In patients revised for aseptic loosening, 11 of 12 tibial implants had progressive radiolucent lines on pre-revision imaging. Revision operative records noted minimal to no bone ingrowth on the tibial implant undersurface.

Conclusions: This novel cementless medial UKA implant demonstrated a high rate of early revision, mostly for tibial-sided complications. Compared to non-revised implants, revised implants had higher rates of tibial and femoral radiolucencies on postoperative radiographs as well as lower KOOS JR 12-month scores pre-revision. When recorded in the operative record, no significant bone ingrowth was seen on the porous implant surfaces.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Arthroplasty
Journal of Arthroplasty 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
734
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Arthroplasty brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research and manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas relating to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with clinical series and experience, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, metallurgy, biologic response to arthroplasty materials in vivo and in vitro.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信