Cement or press-fit? Impact of patellar fixation technique on outcomes after primary TKA: a systematic review

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Vasileios Giovanoulis, Johnny Abboud, Angelo V. Vasiliadis, Victor Meissburger, Christos Koutserimpas, Sebastien Lustig
{"title":"Cement or press-fit? Impact of patellar fixation technique on outcomes after primary TKA: a systematic review","authors":"Vasileios Giovanoulis,&nbsp;Johnny Abboud,&nbsp;Angelo V. Vasiliadis,&nbsp;Victor Meissburger,&nbsp;Christos Koutserimpas,&nbsp;Sebastien Lustig","doi":"10.1007/s00402-025-06035-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The optimal fixation technique for patellar components in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA); cemented versus press-fit, remains controversial. While early press-fit designs were associated with complications, second-generation implants with improved osseointegration features have renewed interest in cementless fixation.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>This systematic review included studies comparing cemented and press-fit patellar fixation in primary TKA. A comprehensive literature search identified 202 studies, of which eight met predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on survivorship, revisions, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Across 1666 knees, survivorship was comparable between cemented and press-fit groups. Several studies reported 100% short-term survivorship in cementless cohorts. Four studies identified statistically significant PROM differences, but findings were inconsistent and context-dependent. No clear advantage was found for either fixation type in terms of overall pain, function, or satisfaction. Cementless patellae demonstrated no increased risk of aseptic loosening or patellar fracture. Complications were infrequent and more often reported in cemented groups.</p><h3>Discussion</h3><p>These findings showed no significant difference in failure or PROMs between fixation methods. While surgical preference remains a driver of implant choice, current evidence does not support a universal superiority of one fixation method over the other.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8326,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","volume":"145 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-025-06035-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The optimal fixation technique for patellar components in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA); cemented versus press-fit, remains controversial. While early press-fit designs were associated with complications, second-generation implants with improved osseointegration features have renewed interest in cementless fixation.

Methods

This systematic review included studies comparing cemented and press-fit patellar fixation in primary TKA. A comprehensive literature search identified 202 studies, of which eight met predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted on survivorship, revisions, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Results

Across 1666 knees, survivorship was comparable between cemented and press-fit groups. Several studies reported 100% short-term survivorship in cementless cohorts. Four studies identified statistically significant PROM differences, but findings were inconsistent and context-dependent. No clear advantage was found for either fixation type in terms of overall pain, function, or satisfaction. Cementless patellae demonstrated no increased risk of aseptic loosening or patellar fracture. Complications were infrequent and more often reported in cemented groups.

Discussion

These findings showed no significant difference in failure or PROMs between fixation methods. While surgical preference remains a driver of implant choice, current evidence does not support a universal superiority of one fixation method over the other.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

水泥还是压合?髌骨固定技术对原发性全膝关节置换术后预后的影响:一项系统综述
原发性全膝关节置换术中髌骨假体的最佳固定技术骨水泥与压合,仍有争议。虽然早期的压合设计与并发症有关,但具有改善骨整合功能的第二代种植体重新引起了人们对无骨水泥固定的兴趣。方法本系统综述包括骨水泥和加压髌骨固定在原发性TKA中的比较研究。全面的文献检索确定了202项研究,其中8项符合预定义的纳入标准。提取有关生存率、修订、并发症和患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)的数据。结果在1666个膝关节中,骨水泥组和加压组的生存率相当。一些研究报告了无骨水泥队列的100%短期生存率。四项研究确定了统计学上显著的PROM差异,但结果不一致且依赖于环境。两种固定方式在整体疼痛、功能或满意度方面均无明显优势。无骨水泥髌骨未显示无菌性松动或髌骨骨折的风险增加。并发症不常见,而在骨水泥组中更为常见。这些发现表明不同的固定方法在失败或prom方面没有显著差异。虽然手术偏好仍然是种植体选择的驱动因素,但目前的证据并不支持一种固定方法优于另一种固定方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
13.00%
发文量
424
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is a rich source of instruction and information for physicians in clinical practice and research in the extensive field of orthopaedics and traumatology. The journal publishes papers that deal with diseases and injuries of the musculoskeletal system from all fields and aspects of medicine. The journal is particularly interested in papers that satisfy the information needs of orthopaedic clinicians and practitioners. The journal places special emphasis on clinical relevance. "Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery" is the official journal of the German Speaking Arthroscopy Association (AGA).
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信