Octavian Andronic, Yue H Yang, Moreica Pabbruwe, Chris W Jones, Piers J Yates
{"title":"现代全膝关节置换术设计中无骨水泥胫骨基板的早期无菌性松动和不良患者报告的结果。","authors":"Octavian Andronic, Yue H Yang, Moreica Pabbruwe, Chris W Jones, Piers J Yates","doi":"10.1302/0301-620X.107B4.BJJ-2024-0704.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study reports the outcome of a modern total knee arthroplasty design using a cementless tibial baseplate compared to the full-cemented version.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive cohorts with 12-month follow-up were evaluated. Patients receiving a cementless tibial baseplate were compared to those who received a cemented tibial component. Endpoints included revision rates and reason for revision, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and progressive radiolucency. Retrieval analysis was performed for the revised cases. Pearson correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of nine knees (7%) from the cementless cohort were revised, all due to aseptic loosened baseplate at a mean follow-up of 10.4 months (3 to 19), whereas the incidence of aseptic loosening of the cemented tibial baseplate was significantly lower at 0.5% (3/534; p < 0.001). The cemented cohort PROMs outperformed the cementless baseplate group at both 12 months' follow-up and the improvement from baseline (mean OKS 40.4 (SD 6.8) vs 38.5 (SD 8.1); p = 0.006; mean ΔOKS 18.8 (SD 9.0) vs 15.5 (SD 12.8); p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of new radiolucency at 12 months (p = 0.325). An elevated BMI was the only factor to correlate (<i>r</i> = -0.195) with worse values of ΔOKS (p = 0.048) in the cementless cohort. The multiple regression analysis determined that an increased BMI was the single independent predictor for aseptic loosening (p = 0.024) for the knees with a cementless tibial baseplate. Retrieval analysis suggested failed osseointegration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our cohort, there was a significantly higher incidence of aseptic loosening and worse PROMs at one year for the cementless tibial baseplate. An increased BMI may be an independent risk factor for aseptic loosening and inferior PROMs.</p>","PeriodicalId":48944,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Journal","volume":"107-B 4","pages":"440-448"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early aseptic loosening and inferior patient-reported outcomes of a cementless tibial baseplate in a modern total knee arthroplasty design.\",\"authors\":\"Octavian Andronic, Yue H Yang, Moreica Pabbruwe, Chris W Jones, Piers J Yates\",\"doi\":\"10.1302/0301-620X.107B4.BJJ-2024-0704.R1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study reports the outcome of a modern total knee arthroplasty design using a cementless tibial baseplate compared to the full-cemented version.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive cohorts with 12-month follow-up were evaluated. Patients receiving a cementless tibial baseplate were compared to those who received a cemented tibial component. Endpoints included revision rates and reason for revision, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and progressive radiolucency. Retrieval analysis was performed for the revised cases. Pearson correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis were used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of nine knees (7%) from the cementless cohort were revised, all due to aseptic loosened baseplate at a mean follow-up of 10.4 months (3 to 19), whereas the incidence of aseptic loosening of the cemented tibial baseplate was significantly lower at 0.5% (3/534; p < 0.001). The cemented cohort PROMs outperformed the cementless baseplate group at both 12 months' follow-up and the improvement from baseline (mean OKS 40.4 (SD 6.8) vs 38.5 (SD 8.1); p = 0.006; mean ΔOKS 18.8 (SD 9.0) vs 15.5 (SD 12.8); p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of new radiolucency at 12 months (p = 0.325). An elevated BMI was the only factor to correlate (<i>r</i> = -0.195) with worse values of ΔOKS (p = 0.048) in the cementless cohort. The multiple regression analysis determined that an increased BMI was the single independent predictor for aseptic loosening (p = 0.024) for the knees with a cementless tibial baseplate. Retrieval analysis suggested failed osseointegration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our cohort, there was a significantly higher incidence of aseptic loosening and worse PROMs at one year for the cementless tibial baseplate. An increased BMI may be an independent risk factor for aseptic loosening and inferior PROMs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"volume\":\"107-B 4\",\"pages\":\"440-448\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bone & Joint Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B4.BJJ-2024-0704.R1\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B4.BJJ-2024-0704.R1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Early aseptic loosening and inferior patient-reported outcomes of a cementless tibial baseplate in a modern total knee arthroplasty design.
Aims: This study reports the outcome of a modern total knee arthroplasty design using a cementless tibial baseplate compared to the full-cemented version.
Methods: Consecutive cohorts with 12-month follow-up were evaluated. Patients receiving a cementless tibial baseplate were compared to those who received a cemented tibial component. Endpoints included revision rates and reason for revision, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and progressive radiolucency. Retrieval analysis was performed for the revised cases. Pearson correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis were used.
Results: A total of nine knees (7%) from the cementless cohort were revised, all due to aseptic loosened baseplate at a mean follow-up of 10.4 months (3 to 19), whereas the incidence of aseptic loosening of the cemented tibial baseplate was significantly lower at 0.5% (3/534; p < 0.001). The cemented cohort PROMs outperformed the cementless baseplate group at both 12 months' follow-up and the improvement from baseline (mean OKS 40.4 (SD 6.8) vs 38.5 (SD 8.1); p = 0.006; mean ΔOKS 18.8 (SD 9.0) vs 15.5 (SD 12.8); p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in the occurrence of new radiolucency at 12 months (p = 0.325). An elevated BMI was the only factor to correlate (r = -0.195) with worse values of ΔOKS (p = 0.048) in the cementless cohort. The multiple regression analysis determined that an increased BMI was the single independent predictor for aseptic loosening (p = 0.024) for the knees with a cementless tibial baseplate. Retrieval analysis suggested failed osseointegration.
Conclusion: In our cohort, there was a significantly higher incidence of aseptic loosening and worse PROMs at one year for the cementless tibial baseplate. An increased BMI may be an independent risk factor for aseptic loosening and inferior PROMs.
期刊介绍:
We welcome original articles from any part of the world. The papers are assessed by members of the Editorial Board and our international panel of expert reviewers, then either accepted for publication or rejected by the Editor. We receive over 2000 submissions each year and accept about 250 for publication, many after revisions recommended by the reviewers, editors or statistical advisers. A decision usually takes between six and eight weeks. Each paper is assessed by two reviewers with a special interest in the subject covered by the paper, and also by members of the editorial team. Controversial papers will be discussed at a full meeting of the Editorial Board. Publication is between four and six months after acceptance.