Abstract
Over 100,000 total knee replacements (TKRs) are carried out in the UK annually, with cemented fixation accounting for approximately 95% of all primary TKRs. In Australia, 68.1% of all primary TKRs use cemented fixation, and only 10.9% use cementless fixation. However, there has been a renewed interest in cementless fixation as a result of improvements in implant design and manufacturing technology.This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of cemented and cementless fixation in primary TKR. Outcome measures included the revision rate and patient-reported functional scores.MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from the earliest available date to November 2018 for randomized controlled trials of primary TKAs comparing cemented versus cementless fixation outcomes.Six studies met our inclusion criteria and were analysed. A total of 755 knees were included; 356 knees underwent cemented fixation, 399 underwent cementless fixation. They were followed up for an average of 8.4 years (range: 2.0 to 16.6).This study found no significant difference in revision rates and knee function in cemented versus cementless TKR at up to 16.6-year follow-up.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:793-798. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200030
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
