Abstract
follow-up) performed with a mobile-bearing TKA with cemented components with the same indications, implant, technique, and length of follow-up. Six of 73 cementless mobile-bearing TKA’s (8%) underwent tibial component revision for symptomatic subsidence and failure of ingrowth, compared to 0/66 revisions in the cemented group (p .05). Patients with cementless mobile bearing TKA also had a significantly lower KSCS (161 vs. 184, p .05), a significantly higher incidence of pain rated more than mild (23% vs. 7%, p .01) and a trend toward less arc of motion (1060 vs. 1150, p 0.2). The results do not support the hypothesis that mobile-bearing TKA imparts the advantage of reliable tibial bone ingrowth.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
