Background: Various surface modifications are used in uncemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) to enhance bony ingrowth and longevity of implants. This study aimed to identify which surface... Show moreBackground: Various surface modifications are used in uncemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) to enhance bony ingrowth and longevity of implants. This study aimed to identify which surface modifications are used, whether they are associated with different revision rates for aseptic loosening, and which are underperforming compared to cemented implants.Methods: Data on all cemented and uncemented TKAs used between 2007 and 2021 were obtained from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Uncemented TKAs were divided into groups based on their surface modifications. Revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revisions were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier, Competing-Risk, Log-rank tests, and Cox regression analyses were used. In total, 235,500 cemented and 10,749 uncemented primary TKAs were included. The different uncemented TKA groups included the following: 1,140 porous-hydroxyapatite (HA); 8,450 Porous-uncoated; 702 Grit-blasteduncoated; and 172 Grit-blasted-Titanium-nitride (TiN) implants.Results: The 10-year revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revision of the cemented TKAs were 1.3 and 3.1%, and for uncemented TKAs 0.2 and 2.3% (porous-HA), 1.3 and 2.9% (porous-uncoated), 2.8 and 4.0% (grit-blasted-uncoated), and 7.9% and 17.4% (grit-blasted-TiN), respectively. Both type of revision rates varied significantly between the uncemented groups (log-rank tests, P < .001, P < .001). All grit-blasted implants had a significantly higher risk of aseptic loosening (P < .01), and porous-uncoated implants had a significantly lower risk of aseptic loosening than cemented implants (P 1/4 .03) after 10 years.Conclusion: There were 4 main uncemented surface modifications identified, with different revision rates for aseptic loosening. Implants with porous-HA and porous-uncoated had the best revision rates, at least equal to cemented TKAs. Grit-blasted implants with and without TiN underperformed, possibly due to the interaction of other factors.(c) 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Show less
IntroductionPatient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery has been shown to increase accuracy of component positioning. However, it is unclear whether... Show moreIntroductionPatient-specific instrumentation (PSI) for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery has been shown to increase accuracy of component positioning. However, it is unclear whether this also translates to actual benefits for patients in terms of better outcomes (efficacy) or less complications such as revisions (safety). We therefore systematically reviewed the literature to determine the efficacy and safety of PSI in primary TKA.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing PSI to non-PSI in primary TKA were included. A random effects model was used with meta-regression in case of heterogeneity.ResultsForty-three studies were included with a total of 1816 TKA in the PSI group and 1887 TKA in the control group. There were no clinically relevant differences between the PSI-group and non-PSI group regarding all outcomes. There was considerable heterogeneity: meta-regression analyses showed that the year the study was published was an important effect modifier. Early publications tended to show a positive effect for PSI compared to non-PSI TKA, whereas later studies found the opposite.ConclusionBased on evidence of moderate certainty, our study suggested that there were no clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety between patients treated with PSI TKA and patients treated with non-PSI TKA. Show less
