Revision Rates for Aseptic Loosening in the Obese Patient: A Comparison Between Stemmed, Uncemented, and Unstemmed Tibial Total Knee Arthroplasty Components

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Arthroplasty Today Pub Date : 2025-02-22 DOI:10.1016/j.artd.2025.101621

Bernard H. van Duren BEng, MBChB, DPhil (Oxon), CEng FIMechE, FRCS Orth, Amy M. Firth BSc (Hons), BMBS, FRCS Orth, Reshid Berber FRCS Orth, PhD, Hosam E. Matar MSc (Res), FRCS Orth, Peter J. James BMedSci, BMBS (Hons), DipBiomech, FRCS Orth, Benjamin V. Bloch BSc (Hons), MBBS, FRCS Orth

{"title":"Revision Rates for Aseptic Loosening in the Obese Patient: A Comparison Between Stemmed, Uncemented, and Unstemmed Tibial Total Knee Arthroplasty Components","authors":"Bernard H. van Duren BEng, MBChB, DPhil (Oxon), CEng FIMechE, FRCS Orth, Amy M. Firth BSc (Hons), BMBS, FRCS Orth, Reshid Berber FRCS Orth, PhD, Hosam E. Matar MSc (Res), FRCS Orth, Peter J. James BMedSci, BMBS (Hons), DipBiomech, FRCS Orth, Benjamin V. Bloch BSc (Hons), MBBS, FRCS Orth","doi":"10.1016/j.artd.2025.101621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment option for high body mass index (BMI) patients achieving similar outcomes to nonobese patients. However, increased rates of aseptic loosening in patients with a high BMI have been reported. Component fixation is a concern when performing TKA in the obese patient. To address this concern in cemented TKA, extended tibial stems have been used. Uncemented implants that take advantage of biologic osseointegration have also been advocated. This retrospective study examined the use of and revision rates of extended cemented tibial stems and uncemented implants compared with conventional cemented implants in our high BMI patient population.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of 3239 primary Attune TKAs (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana). All obese patients (BMI > 30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>) with > 30 months of follow-up were included in our analysis. Those who underwent cemented TKA using a tibial stem extension (Group 1) (n = 145) and those where cementless implants were used (Group 2) (n = 100) were compared to a control group (n = 1243) using a standard cemented implant. Primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In total, there were 1512 knees that met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 6.8, 5.1, and 5.3 years for cemented, stemmed, and cementless groups, respectively. There were 37 all-cause revisions identified. Seven were for aseptic loosening (2 tibial, 1 femoral, and 4 involving both components); all of these were in the standard cemented implant group. There were no revisions in the stemmed or cementless implant groups. Survival analysis did not show any significant differences between groups for either all-cause revision or for aseptic loosening.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This retrospective analysis showed that there were no revisions required for aseptic loosening when a cemented, stemmed, or uncemented implant was used in obese patients. These findings show that cementless and extended stem implants are a reasonable option in obese patients.</div></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><div>Level III.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37940,"journal":{"name":"Arthroplasty Today","volume":"32 ","pages":"Article 101621"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroplasty Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352344125000081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment option for high body mass index (BMI) patients achieving similar outcomes to nonobese patients. However, increased rates of aseptic loosening in patients with a high BMI have been reported. Component fixation is a concern when performing TKA in the obese patient. To address this concern in cemented TKA, extended tibial stems have been used. Uncemented implants that take advantage of biologic osseointegration have also been advocated. This retrospective study examined the use of and revision rates of extended cemented tibial stems and uncemented implants compared with conventional cemented implants in our high BMI patient population.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of 3239 primary Attune TKAs (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana). All obese patients (BMI > 30 kg/m²) with > 30 months of follow-up were included in our analysis. Those who underwent cemented TKA using a tibial stem extension (Group 1) (n = 145) and those where cementless implants were used (Group 2) (n = 100) were compared to a control group (n = 1243) using a standard cemented implant. Primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups.

Results

In total, there were 1512 knees that met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 6.8, 5.1, and 5.3 years for cemented, stemmed, and cementless groups, respectively. There were 37 all-cause revisions identified. Seven were for aseptic loosening (2 tibial, 1 femoral, and 4 involving both components); all of these were in the standard cemented implant group. There were no revisions in the stemmed or cementless implant groups. Survival analysis did not show any significant differences between groups for either all-cause revision or for aseptic loosening.

Conclusions

This retrospective analysis showed that there were no revisions required for aseptic loosening when a cemented, stemmed, or uncemented implant was used in obese patients. These findings show that cementless and extended stem implants are a reasonable option in obese patients.

Level of evidence

Level III.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Arthroplasty Today Medicine-Surgery

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

258

审稿时长

40 weeks

期刊介绍： Arthroplasty Today is a companion journal to the Journal of Arthroplasty. The journal Arthroplasty Today brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement of the hip and knee in an open-access, online format. Arthroplasty Today solicits manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas of scientific endeavor that relate to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with patient outcomes, economic and policy issues, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, and biologic response to arthroplasty. The journal focuses on case reports. It is the purpose of Arthroplasty Today to present material to practicing orthopaedic surgeons that will keep them abreast of developments in the field, prove useful in the care of patients, and aid in understanding the scientific foundation of this subspecialty area of joint replacement. The international members of the Editorial Board provide a worldwide perspective for the journal''s area of interest. Their participation ensures that each issue of Arthroplasty Today provides the reader with timely, peer-reviewed articles of the highest quality.