Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review
- 879 Downloads
The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome, failures, implant survival, and complications encountered with cementless fixation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
A systematic review of the literature on cementless fixation in UKA was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The following database was comprehensively searched: PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Google Scholar. The keywords “unicompartmental”, “unicondylar”, “partial knee arthroplasty”, and “UKA” were combined with each of the keyword “uncemented”, “cementless” and “survival”, “complications”, and “outcome”. The following data were extracted: demographics, clinical outcome, details of failures and revisions, cumulative survival, and complications encountered. The risk of bias of each study was estimated with the MINORS score and a further scoring system based on the presence of the primary outcomes.
From a cohort of 63 studies identified using the above methodology, 10 papers (1199 knees) were included in the final review. The mean follow-up ranged from 2 to 11 years (median 5 years). The 5-year survival ranged from 90 to 99 % and the 10-year survival from 92 to 97 %. There were 48 revisions with an overall revision rate of 0.8 per 100 observed component-years. The most common cause of failure was progression of osteoarthritis in the retained compartment (0.9 %). The cumulative incidence of complications and revisions was comparable to that reported in similar studies on cemented UKAs. The advantages of cementless fixation include faster surgical time, avoidance of cementation errors, and lower incidence of radiolucent lines.
Cementless fixation is a safe and effective alternative to cementation in medial UKA. Clinical outcome, failures, reoperation rate, and survival are similar to those reported for cemented implants with lower incidence of radiolucent lines.
Level of evidence
KeywordsUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty Cementless Partial knee arthroplasty UKA
Knee Society Score
Oxford Knee Score
Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Randomised controlled trial
Total knee arthroplasty
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
The authors would like to thank T.W. Hamilton, B.E. Marks, J. Brown, and J. Ferris for their assistance with this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Some of the authors have received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. In addition, benefits have been or will be directed to a research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other non-profit organisation with which one or more of the authors are associated.
- 3.Bernasek TL, Ja Rand, Bryan RS (1988) Unicompartmental porous coated anatomic total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 236:52–59Google Scholar
- 8.Goodfellow J, O’Connor J, Pandit HG, Dodd CAF, Murray DW (2015) Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee, 2nd edn. Goodfellow Publishers, Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- 14.Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14Google Scholar
- 35.Sabah SA, Henckel J, Koutsouris S, Rajani R, Hothi H, Skinner JA, Hart AJ (2016) Are all metal-on-metal hip revision operations contributing to the National Joint Registry implant survival curves?: a study comparing the London Implant Retrieval Centre and National Joint Registry datasets. Bone Joint J 98-b(1):33–39CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 37.Seeger JB, Haas D, Jager S, Rohner E, Tohtz S, Clarius M (2012) Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(6):1087–1091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Swank M, Stulberg SD, Jiganti J, Machairas S (1993) The natural history of unicompartmental arthroplasty. An eight-year follow-up study with survivorship analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:130–142Google Scholar