Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless—a meta-analysis

  • Knee
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Revision of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is growing rapidly all over the world. The introduction of intramedullary stems for additional stability in revision is well accepted by most of the surgeons, while the philosophy of stem fixation is still under controversy. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the survivorship of revised implants with regard to a cemented or cementless stem fixation.

Methods

Publications with patients who underwent revision TKA with minimum 24-month follow-up were systematically reviewed. Type of intramedullary stem fixation, failure rate for any reason, incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were extracted with follow-up interval specified. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to aggregate incidence data, which was compared between different fixation groups by fitting of logistic regression model.

Results

Seventeen observational studies were included in this meta-analysis. There was a similar likelihood of failure for any reason (risk ratio, RR 0.97), general reoperation (RR 1.02), aseptic loosening (RR 1.0) and infection (RR 1.0) in cemented stem fixation group compared to cementless stem fixation group with follow-up <60 months. When follow-up period extend to more than 60 months, the same likelihood was observed as 0.98, 0.96, 0.97 and 0.98, respectively. There was no significant difference in any of these comparisons of survival-related indices.

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in failure for any reason, reoperation, aseptic loosening and infection between revision TKA with cemented or cementless stem fixation. Based on the available literature, no superiority of any type of stem fixation was found. If follow-up period was neglected, aseptic loosening would be the leading reason for pain and dysfunction of patient undertaken revision TKA.

Level of evidence

Systematic review of Level IV, Therapeutic studies, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bae DK, Song SJ, Heo DB, Lee SH, Song WJ (2013) Long-term survival rate of implants and modes of failure after revision total knee arthroplasty by a single surgeon. J Arthroplasty 28:1130–1134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beckmann J, Lüring C, Springorum R, Köck FX, Grifka J, Tingart M (2011) Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:872–879

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bertin KC, Freeman MA, Samuelson KM, Ratcliffe SS, Todd RC (1985) Stemmed revision arthroplasty for aseptic loosening of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 67:242–248

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bottner F, Laskin R, Windsor RE, Haas SB (2006) Hybrid component fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:127–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ (2010) The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:45–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chon JG, Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR (2004) Hybrid stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Surg Technol Int 12:214–220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Clatworthy MG, Ballance J, Brick GW, Chandler HP, Gross AE (2001) The use of structural allograft for uncontained defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. A minimum 5 year review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83(A3):404–411

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Completo A, Fonseca F, Simões JA (2008) Strain shielding in proximal tibia of stemmed knee prosthesis: experimental study. J Biomech 41:560–566

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Conditt MA, Parsley BS, Alexander JW, Doherty SD, Noble PC (2004) The optimal strategy for stable tibial fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19(Supp 2):113–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dekkers OM, Egger M, Altman DG, Vandenbroucke JP (2012) Distinguishing case series from cohort studies. Ann Intern Med 156:37–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Edwards PK, Fehring TK, Hamilton WG, Perricelli B, Beaver WB, Odum SM (2014) Are cementless stems more durable than cemented stems in two-stage revisions of infected total knee arthroplasties? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472:206–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Engh GA, Herzwurm PJ, Parks NL (1997) Treatment of major defects of bone with bulk allografts and stemmed components during total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1030–1039

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fehring TK, Odum S, Olekson C, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy TH (2003) Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:217–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman MF, Tukey JW (1950) Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Statist 21:607–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gililland JM, Gaffney CJ, Odum SM, Fehring TK, Peters CL, Beaver WB (2014) Clinical and radiographic outcomes of cemented versus diaphyseal engaging cementless stems in aseptic revision TKA. J Arthroplasty 29(9 Suppl):224–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gofton WT, Tsigaras H, Butler RA, Patterson JJ, Barrack RL, Rorabeck CH (2002) Revision total knee arthroplasty: fixation with modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:158–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greene JW, Reynolds SM, Stimac JD, Malkani AL, Massini MA (2013) Midterm results of hybrid cement technique in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 28:570–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haas SB, Insall JN, Montgomery W 3rd, Windsor RE (1995) Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 77:1700–1707

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones RD (2011) Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 19:311–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS (2010) Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1221–1228

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Iamaguchi MM, de Castro FB, Gobbi RG, Tirico LE, Pécora JR, Camanho GL (2013) Results of revision total knee arthroplasty using press-fit cementless stem. Acta Ortop Bras 21:23–26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Jazrawi LM, Bai B, Kummer FJ, Hiebert R, Stuchin SA (2001) The effect of stem modularity and mode of fixation on tibial component stability in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16:759–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim YH, Kim JS (2009) Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1440–1447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ (2009) Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2606–2612

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ (2014) Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96:624–630

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2014) A 30-mm cemented stem extension provides adequate fixation of the tibial component in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3529-6

    Google Scholar 

  30. Luque R, Rizo B, Urda A, Garcia-Crespo R, Moro E, Marco F, López-Duran L (2014) Predictive factors for failure after total knee replacement revision. Int Orthop 38:429–435

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Mabry TM, Hanssen AD (2007) The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:56–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mabry TM, Vessely MB, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ (2007) Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular cemented stems: long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty 22:100–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Manopoulos P, Havet E, Pearce O, Lardanchet JF, Mertl P (2012) Mid- to long-term results of revision total knee replacement using press-fit intramedullary stems with cemented femoral and tibial components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 94:937–940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 21:b2535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mortazavi SM, Molligan J, Austin MS, Purtill JJ, Hozack WJ, Parvizi J (2011) Failure following revision total knee arthroplasty: infection is the major cause. Int Orthop 35:1157–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Mortazavi SM, Schwartzenberger J, Austin MS, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J (2010) Revision total knee arthroplasty infection: incidence and predictors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2052–2059

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mow CS, Wiedel JD (1998) Revision total knee arthroplasty using the porous-coated anatomic revision prosthesis: 6–12-year results. J Arthroplasty 13:681–686

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ (2006) Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Murray PB, Rand JA, Hanssen AD (1994) Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 309:116–123

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nelson CL, Lonner JH, Rand JA, Lotke PA (2003) Strategies of stem fixation and the role of supplemental bone graft in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:S52–S57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Peters CL, Erickson J, Kloepper RG, Mohr RA (2005) Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular components inserted with metaphyseal cement and stems without cement. J Arthroplasty 20:302–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Peters CL, Erickson JA, Gililland JM (2009) Clinical and radiographic results of 184 consecutive revision total knee arthroplasties placed with modular cementless stems. J Arthroplasty 24:48–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ravi B, Croxford R, Reichmann WM, Losina E, Katz JN, Hawker GA (2012) The changing demographics of total joint arthroplasty recipients in the United States and Ontario from 2001 to 2007. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 26:637–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sah AP, Shukla S, Della Valle CJ, Rosenberg AG, Paprosky WG (2010) Modified hybrid stem fixation in revision TKA is durable at 2–10 years. Clin Orthop 469:839–846

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Shannon BD, Klassen JF, Rand JA, Berry DJ, Trousdale RT (2003) Revision total knee arthroplasty with cemented components and uncemented intramedullary stems. J Arthroplasty 18:27–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkoski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodolical index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Stroup DF, BerlinJA MortonSC, OlkinI WilliamsonGD, RennieD MoherD, BeckerBJ SipeTA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283:2008–2012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Vince KG, Long W (1995) Revision knee arthroplasty. The limits of press fit medullary fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 317:172–177

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Whaley AL, Trousdale RT, Rand JA, Hanssen AD (2003) Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:592–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Whiteside LA (2006) Cementless fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:140–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wood GC, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB (2009) Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:810–817

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Foundation items: Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, China (No. 2009ZRB14311). The authors would like to thank Dr. for his critical review of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Joint Surgery, Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

    Changyao Wang

  2. Center for Musculoskeletal Surgery, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Tilman Pfitzner & Philipp von Roth

  3. Orthopädische Chirurgie München, Steinerstraβe 6, 81369, Munich, Germany

    Hermann O. Mayr, Michael Sostheim & Robert Hube

Authors
  1. Changyao Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tilman Pfitzner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Philipp von Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hermann O. Mayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Sostheim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Robert Hube
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Hube.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, C., Pfitzner, T., von Roth, P. et al. Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless—a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 3200–3211 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3820-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3820-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation