TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY IN PATIENTS WITH OBESITY: A COMPARISON BETWEEN STEMMED, CEMENTLESS, AND UNSTEMMED TIBIAL COMPONENTS

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesObesity is prevalent with nearly one third of the world's population being classified as obese. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment option for high BMI patients achieving similar outcomes to non-obese patients. However, increased rates of aseptic loosening in patients with a high BMI have been reported. In patients with high BMI/body mass there is an increase in strain placed on the implant fixation interfaces. As such component fixation is a potential concern when performing TKA in the obese patient. To address this concern the use of extended tibial stems in cemented implants or cementless fixation have been advocated. Extend tibial stems are thought to improve implant stability reducing the micromotion between interfaces and consequently the risk of aseptic loosening. Cementless implants, once biologic fixation is achieved, effectively integrate into bone eliminating an interface. This retrospective study compared the use of extended tibial stems and cementless implants to conventional cemented implants in high BMI patients.MethodsFrom a prospectively maintained database of 3239 primary Attune TKA (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana), obese patients (body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m²) were retrospectively reviewed. Two groups of patients 1) using a tibial stem extension [n=162] and 2) cementless fixation [n=163] were compared to 3) a control group (n=1426) with a standard tibial stem cemented implant. All operations were performed by or under the direct supervision of specialist arthroplasty surgeons. Analysis compared the groups with respect to class I, II, and III (BMI >30kg/m², >35 kg/m², >40 kg/m²) obesity. The 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. Where radiographic images at greater than 3 months post-operatively were available, radiographs were examined to compare the presence of peri-implant radiolucent lines.ResultsThe mean follow-up of 4.8, 3.4, and 2.5 years for cemented, stemmed, and cementless groups respectively. In total there were 34 all-cause revisions across all the groups with revision rates of 4.55, 5.50, and 0.00 per 1000-implant-years for cemented, stemmed, and cementless groups respectively. Survival Analysis did not show any significant differences between the three groups for all-all cause revision. There were 6 revisions for aseptic loosening (5 tibial and 1 femoral); all of which were in the standard cemented implant group. In contrast there were no revisions in the stemmed or cementless implant groups, however, this was not significant on survival analysis. Analysis looking at class I, II, and III obesity also did not show any significant differences in survival for all cause revision or aseptic loosening.ConclusionThis retrospective analysis showed that there were no revisions required for aseptic loosening when either a cemented stemmed or cementless implant were used in obese patients. These findings are in line with other studies showing that cementless fixation or extended stem implants are a reasonable option in obese patients who represent an increasing cohort of patients requiring TKR.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.