Abstract
目的
探讨国产3D打印骨小梁金属界面非骨水泥型膝关节假体行人工全膝关节置换术(total knee arthroplasty,TKA)患者的早中期疗效与假体生存率。
方法
回顾性分析2021年12月—2022年3月收治且符合选择标准的79例因终末期膝关节疾病行初次TKA的患者临床资料。其中非骨水泥组39例,采用3D打印骨小梁金属界面非骨水泥膝关节假体;骨水泥组40例,采用后稳定型骨水泥固定膝关节假体。两组患者年龄、性别、体质量、疾病类型、病程及术前膝关节协会评分(KSS)(包括临床评分与功能评分)等基线资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。记录并比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量及并发症发生情况;术前及末次随访时采用KSS临床评分和功能评分评价膝关节功能恢复情况;影像学评估假体松动、骨溶解、假体下沉、关节脱位等;以假体需全部/部分取出为结局事件,计算假体生存率,采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制假体生存曲线。
结果
所有患者均顺利完成手术,两组手术时间和术中出血量比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。非骨水泥组和骨水泥组患者均获随访,随访时间分别为(28.4±2.4)个月和(28.2±2.8)个月,差异无统计学意义(t=−0.274,P=0.785)。末次随访时,两组KSS临床评分与功能评分均较术前显著升高(P<0.05),组间各评分变化值比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。末次随访时X线片示,所有患者均无假体松动、骨溶解、假体下沉及关节脱位发生。随访期间,非骨水泥组发生肌间静脉血栓5例,骨水泥组发生肌间静脉血栓6例、切口愈合不良1例、假体周围感染1例、假体周围骨折1例、全因死亡1例,两组并发症发生率比较(12.8% vs 25.0%)差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。骨水泥组发生假体周围感染或骨折行翻修术各1例,假体生存率95.0%;非骨水泥组无结局事件发生,假体生存率100.0%。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析示,两组假体生存率差异无统计学意义(Log-rank检验:χ2=2.028,P=0.154)。
结论
采用3D打印骨小梁金属界面非骨水泥型膝关节假体行TKA的患者在术后功能、并发症发生率、假体生存率方面与骨水泥型假体相比无明显劣势,是一种安全有效的假体选择。
Keywords: 人工全膝关节置换术, 非骨水泥型假体, 骨水泥型假体, 生存率
Abstract
Objective
To investigate the short- and mid-term effectiveness and prosthesis survival rate in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using domestic cementless knee prostheses with three-dimensional (3D)-printed trabecular metal interface.
Methods
A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of 79 patients who underwent primary TKA for end-stage knee disorders, met the selection criteria and were treated between December 2021 and March 2022. There were 39 patients in the cementless group receiving cementless knee prostheses with 3D-printed trabecular metal interface, and 40 patients in the cemented group adopting posterior-stabilized cement-fixed knee prostheses. Baseline data including age, gender, body weight, disease type, disease duration, and preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) (clinical score and function score) showed no significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05). Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were recorded and compared between groups. KSS clinical and function scores before operation and at last follow-up were used to evaluate knee functional recovery. Radiographic assessment was conducted to detect prosthesis loosening, osteolysis, prosthesis subsidence, joint dislocation, and other abnormalities. Prosthesis survival rate was calculated with complete or partial prosthesis removal defined as the endpoint event, and Kaplan-Meier method was adopted to plot prosthesis survival curves.
Results
All patients successfully completed surgery. No significant intergroup differences were found in operation time and intraoperative blood loss (P>0.05). All patients in the cementless group and cemented group were followed up for (28.4±2.4) months and (28.2±2.8) months respectively, without significant difference (t=−0.274, P=0.785). At last follow-up, both KSS clinical and function scores were significantly higher than preoperative values in both groups (P<0.05), while no significant intergroup differences were observed in the changes of each score (P>0.05). X-ray films at last follow-up revealed no prosthesis loosening, osteolysis, prosthesis subsidence, or joint dislocation in any patient. During follow-up, 5 cases of intermuscular venous thrombosis occurred in the cementless group; in the cemented group, there were 6 cases of intermuscular venous thrombosis, 1 case of poor wound healing, 1 case of periprosthetic joint infection, 1 case of periprosthetic fracture, and 1 case of all-cause death. The complication rates of the two groups (12.8% vs 25.0%) were not different (P>0.05). One revision surgery was performed for periprosthetic joint infection and 1 for periprosthetic fracture in the cemented group, corresponding to a prosthesis survival rate of 95.0%; no endpoint events occurred in the cementless group, with a prosthesis survival rate of 100.0%. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis demonstrated no significant difference in prosthesis survival rates between the two groups (Log-rank test: χ2=2.028, P=0.154).
Conclusion
TKA performed with domestic cementless knee prostheses featuring 3D-printed trabecular metal interface shows no obvious disadvantages compared with cemented prostheses in terms of postoperative function, complication rate, and prosthesis survival rate, which represents a safe and viable prosthesis option.
Keywords: Total knee arthroplasty, cementless prosthesis, cemented prosthesis, survival rate
骨水泥型人工全膝关节置换术(total knee arthroplasty,TKA)在终末期膝关节疾病治疗中取得了满意的临床疗效,被视为TKA的“金标准”。在至少10年的随访中,骨水泥型假体的存活率超过95%[1]。然而,多个人工关节登记处的报告显示,年轻及肥胖患者采用骨水泥型假体的翻修率相对较高[2];同时,骨水泥毒性、组织热损伤及第三体磨损等因素也在一定程度上影响其长期稳定性[3]。因此,临床亟需研发骨整合效果更优的非骨水泥型假体,以进一步提高假体生存率。
非骨水泥型假体在理论上具备多项优势,包括更好地保留宿主骨量、避免骨水泥碎屑及其引发的第三体磨损、实现植入物与宿主骨之间的生物学骨整合等。多孔金属表面设计可提高植入物与骨界面的摩擦系数,提供更适宜的弹性模量,从而获得良好的初始稳定性。此外,现代植入物表面已开始应用生物活性涂层(如羟基磷灰石),以减少微动、增强骨传导性能,促进骨长入[4]。系统分析结果显示,非骨水泥型TKA与骨水泥型TKA的总体疗效相当[5],但其长期获益尚未明确,仍有待更长随访时间研究加以验证。此外,非骨水泥型假体在不同人群中的应用效果尚缺乏充分证据支持。目前使用的非骨水泥型假体设计多源自美国公司,符合亚洲人群解剖特点的产品仍属稀缺。
本研究回顾性分析采用国产3D打印骨小梁金属界面非骨水泥型膝关节假体行TKA患者术后至少2年临床效果,通过与同期骨水泥型假体置换患者进行比较,评估该假体的安全性及有效性,以期为非骨水泥型TKA在国人中的应用提供初步临床依据。报告如下。
1. 临床资料
1.1. 一般资料
患者纳入标准:① 年龄50~80岁,性别不限;② 因退行性骨关节炎、创伤性关节炎或类风湿性关节炎等终末期膝关节疾病行初次TKA。排除标准:① 神经肌肉功能不全(如麻痹、肌溶解或肌无力),可能导致术后膝关节不稳定或步态异常;② 精神障碍或无法理解研究要求;③ 预期依从性差;④ 对植入材料存在已知过敏史;⑤ 膝关节或其他部位存在活动性感染灶;⑥ 膝关节周围存在严重骨质疏松、代谢性骨病、放射性骨病或肿瘤;⑦ 临床及影像资料不完整。
2021年12月—2022年3月共79例患者符合选择标准纳入研究,其中非骨水泥组39例,采用3D打印骨小梁金属界面非骨水泥膝关节假体 [雅博尼西医疗科技(苏州)有限公司];骨水泥组40例,采用后稳定型骨水泥固定膝关节假体(捷迈公司,美国)。两组患者年龄、性别、体质量、疾病类型、病程及术前膝关节协会评分(KSS)(包括临床评分与功能评分)[6]等基线资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。见表1。
表 1.
Comparison of baseline data between the two groups
两组患者基线资料比较
| 基线资料 Baseline data |
骨水泥组(n=40) Cemented group (n=40) |
非骨水泥组(n=39) Cementless group (n=39) |
统计量 Statistical value |
P值 P value |
| 年龄(x±s,岁) | 66.9±6.0 | 67.9±6.0 | t=−0.761 | 0.449 |
| 性别(男/女,例) | 10/30 | 12/27 | χ2=0.327 | 0.567 |
| 体质量(x±s,kg) | 64.1±5.7 | 63.1±5.9 | t=0.799 | 0.427 |
| 疾病类型(退行性骨关节炎/类风湿性关节炎,例) | 39/1 | 37/2 | χ2=0.373 | 0.541 |
| 病程(x±s,年) | 5.9±2.9 | 5.1±2.4 | t=1.359 | 0.178 |
| 术前KSS临床评分(x±s) | 46.8±6.1 | 49.3±6.1 | t=−1.764 | 0.082 |
| 术前KSS功能评分(x±s) | 43.0±4.8 | 43.6±5.4 | t=−0.528 | 0.599 |
1.2. 手术方法
所有手术均由同一组关节外科医师完成。采用膝关节前正中联合髌旁内侧入路,翻转髌骨,常规清理关节腔,以电刀行髌骨周缘去神经化,清除增生骨赘,切除部分髌下脂肪垫及髌上囊组织,取增生滑膜与纤维组织送病理检查。股骨侧采用髓内定位,以外翻5°、外旋3° 为基准,参照胫骨截骨面以间隙平衡法确定外旋角度,依据截骨模板完成股骨远端截骨。胫骨侧采用髓外定位器完成截骨。安装试模测试假体稳定性及关节活动度,满意后植入假体。反复冲洗关节腔清除碎屑,常规放置引流管,逐层缝合切口。
记录两组患者所有植入假体的型号与尺寸。骨水泥组统一采用后稳定型骨水泥固定假体。非骨水泥组股骨髁由铸造钴铬钼合金材料和带有骨小梁结构的3D打印工艺钴铬钼涂层制作而成;胫骨衬垫由含维生素E的大剂量辐射高交联超高分子量聚乙烯材料制成,胫骨托由锻造钛合金材料和带有骨小梁结构的3D打印工艺钛合金涂层制作而成,且为非对称性解剖型假体。
1.3. 术后处理及疗效评价指标
所有患者术后统一按照膝关节置换围术期加速康复方案管理,给予营养支持、镇痛、预防感染及抗凝药物治疗。术后康复师于床旁指导患者双下肢肌肉功能锻炼及踝泵训练。术后第2天复查双下肢全长正位及膝关节正侧位X线片,评估整体对线及假体位置;并行双下肢血管彩色超声多普勒检查,指导患者于助行器辅助下站立及下床活动。切口定期换药,保持局部清洁干燥。
记录并比较两组患者手术时间、术中出血量及并发症发生情况。术前及末次随访时采用KSS临床评分和功能评分评价膝关节功能。随访时摄膝关节站立位正侧位X线片,评估假体松动(假体-骨界面100%透亮线形成)、骨溶解(假体周围出现进行性非线形透亮区,最宽处直径>2 mm)、假体下沉、关节脱位等。以假体需全部/部分取出为结局事件,计算假体生存率。
1.4. 统计学方法
采用SPSS26.0统计软件进行分析。计量资料经Shapiro-Wilk检验均符合正态分布,数据以均数±标准差表示,组间比较采用独立样本t检验,组内比较采用配对t检验;计数资料以频数和率表示,组间比较采用四格表卡方检验;采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制假体生存曲线,Log-rank检验比较组间假体生存率。检验水准取双侧α=0.05。
2. 结果
所有患者均顺利完成手术,两组手术时间和术中出血量比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。非骨水泥组和骨水泥组患者均获随访,随访时间分别为(28.4±2.4)个月和(28.2±2.8)个月,差异无统计学意义(t=−0.274,P=0.785)。末次随访时,两组KSS临床评分与功能评分均较术前显著升高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);组间各评分变化值比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访期间,所有患者均无假体松动、骨溶解、假体下沉及关节脱位发生。非骨水泥组发生肌间静脉血栓5例,经规范抗凝治疗后痊愈,总并发症发生率为12.8%;骨水泥组发生肌间静脉血栓6例、切口愈合不良1例、假体周围感染1例、假体周围骨折1例、全因死亡1例,总并发症发生率为25.0%;非骨水泥组并发症发生率更低,但两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。随访期间,骨水泥组发生假体周围感染或骨折行翻修术各1例,假体生存率95.0%;非骨水泥组无结局事件发生,假体生存率100.0%。Kaplan-Meier生存曲线分析显示,两组假体生存率差异无统计学意义(Log-rank检验:χ2=2.028,P=0.154)。见表2,图1、2。
表 2.
Comparison of outcome indicators between the two groups
两组患者结局指标比较
| 结局指标 Outcome indicator |
骨水泥组(n=40) Cemented group (n=40) |
非骨水泥组(n=39) Cementless group (n=39) |
效应值(95%CI) Effect value (95%CI) |
P值 P value |
| 手术时间(x±s,min) | 90.2±5.4 | 88.4±5.0 | MD=1.789(−0.541,4.119) | 0.130 |
| 术中出血量(x±s,mL) | 128.3±39.9 | 124.6±38.9 | MD=3.635(−14.037,21.306) | 0.683 |
| KSS临床评分变化值(x±s) | 35.8±4.4 | 36.1±4.9 | MD=−0.213(−2.340,1.913) | 0.842 |
| KSS功能评分变化值(x±s) | 36.9±4.8 | 38.1±4.8 | MD=−1.185(−3.376,1.006) | 0.285 |
| 并发症 [例(%)] | 10(25.0) | 5(12.8) | OR=0.441(0.136,1.438) | 0.168 |
图 1.
Anteroposterior and lateral X-ray films of a 53-year-old male patient with osteoarthritis of the left knee in cementless group
非骨水泥组患者,男,53岁,左膝骨关节炎正侧位X线片
a. 术前;b. 术后2 d示非骨水泥型假体固定牢固、位置良好;c. 术后2年示非骨水泥型假体固定牢固、位置良好,假体周围无骨溶解
a. Before operation; b. At 2 days after operation, the cementless prosthesis was firmly fixed and in satisfactory position; c. At 2 years after operation, the cementless prosthesis was firmly fixed and in satisfactory position, and there was no osteolysis around the prosthesis

图 2.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves
Kaplan-Meier生存曲线图
3. 讨论
当非手术治疗无效时,TKA已成为终末期膝关节疾病的首选治疗方式。大量研究表明,骨水泥型TKA可获得满意临床疗效[7]。然而,随着肥胖、年轻及高活动量患者接受TKA的比例不断增加,骨水泥型假体的翻修风险相应升高[8-9]。无菌性松动是导致年轻和肥胖患者骨水泥型TKA失效的常见原因之一[10]。 Abdel等[11]在回顾性研究中发现,即便膝关节对线良好,肥胖患者因无菌性松动导致失败率仍显著升高。另一项研究亦证实,病态肥胖患者采用骨水泥型TKA的失败率较高[12]。同样,年轻患者初次TKA后的翻修率亦高于老年人群[13]。Meehan等[14]报道,50岁以下行初次骨水泥型TKA患者术后1年无菌性松动风险高于65岁以上患者。上述证据对骨水泥型TKA的“金标准”地位提出了挑战,促使临床医师寻求通过更优的骨整合与生物固定来提高假体生存率。
理论上,非骨水泥型假体理论上具有多项优势,有利于实现假体的长期生存。然而,早期非骨水泥型假体因涂层不良、胫骨锁定机制欠佳及聚乙烯颗粒磨损等原因,临床失败率较高[15]。Ritter等[16]观察了1984年—1986年间73例非骨水泥型TKA,20年总生存率仅为76.4%。胫骨平台失效是早期非骨水泥型TKA失败的重要原因之一,受材料限制,胫骨平台难以提供有效的初始稳定,进而导致无菌性松动及假体失败[17]。因此非骨水泥型假体不建议用于骨质条件差的高龄患者。尽管早期假体设计存在缺陷,但随着新型材料发展及3D打印、机器人辅助等技术的应用,非骨水泥型TKA重新成为临床上可靠的选择,尤其适用于骨质良好、活动量需求较大的年轻患者。研究表明,现代设计的非骨水泥型TKA生存率较早期设计有所提高[18]。
众所周知,初始稳定性是非骨水泥型TKA实现成功生物固定的关键。现代非骨水泥型假体通过优化生物相容性、孔隙率及表面粗糙度来增强假体稳定性,同时采用羟基磷灰石等生物活性涂层,通过减少微动和增加骨传导性能提高骨整合可能性[15]。有学者评价了羟基磷灰石涂层非骨水泥型假体与骨水泥型假体术后5年的随访结果,两组间无明显差异[19]。系统分析结果表明,羟基磷灰石涂层的稳定性优于其他非骨水泥型假体设计,但在功能结果方面并不优于骨水泥型假体[20]。由美国捷迈公司研发的钽金属骨小梁非骨水泥型假体(Trabecular MetalTM)已应用于临床,其孔隙率与松质骨相似,具备优良的机械和生物学特性,可实现远期骨长入及良好的初始稳定性。研究发现,Trabecular MetalTM非骨水泥型假体与骨水泥型假体在术后5年临床评分、并发症发生率及假体生存率方面结果相似[21]。Hampton等[22]随访15年结果示,Trabecular MetalTM非骨水泥型TKA的临床疗效和影像学分析结果均优于骨水泥型TKA。由美国微创®骨科公司设计的BIOFOAM系统为多孔钛金属材料,孔隙率高达80%,弹性模量与骨相似,摩擦系数增加,能够实现早期稳定和骨整合[23]。Waddell等[24]在回顾性研究中报道了多孔钛金属的短期疗效,术后24个月随访中未发现影像学进行性透亮线或失败患者。美国史赛克公司生产的Triathlon®系统为新型非骨水泥型假体(Tritanium),由3D打印多孔钛涂层形成生物固定界面,并配有三角形龙骨及4个“十”字形钉柱以增强初始稳定性。Miller等[7]在平均5年随访中发现,Tritanium非骨水泥型假体的全因翻修生存率为96.5%,骨水泥组为95.5%,两组间无明显差异。综上,材料技术进步与假体设计创新改善了非骨水泥型假体的初始稳定性,并取得了与骨水泥型假体相似的中短期效果。本研究所用国产非骨水泥型假体亦取得了与骨水泥型假体类似的疗效,且术中缺少了骨水泥聚合反应的过程,手术时间缩短,也相应减少了术后并发症的发生率。
本研究所用非骨水泥型假体为国产假体,股骨髁由铸造钴铬钼合金及3D打印骨小梁结构钴铬钼涂层构成,髌骨与胫骨衬垫采用含维生素E的高交联超高分子量聚乙烯材料,胫骨平台由锻造钛合金及3D打印骨小梁结构钛合金涂层构成,胫骨平台下方增加六边形短柱结构,采用了内外侧非对称的解剖型设计。术中可根据患者骨质及软组织情况灵活选择胫骨垫片,在尽量减少截骨的前提下实现活动度与稳定性的平衡。该系统股骨髁及胫骨平台均采用具有高摩擦系数及优异骨长入特性的3D打印金属骨小梁涂层,理论上可在提供良好初始稳定的同时诱导成骨细胞的长入,从而增加后期骨整合的可能。本研究结果显示,术后随访平均2年以上,患者KSS临床评分与功能评分均较术前显著改善,假体生存率与骨水泥假体相似,未发生无菌性松动、骨溶解等原因导致的假体失败。
本研究的创新之处在于,目前国内关于国产3D打印金属骨小梁界面非骨水泥型TKA假体的临床应用与随访效果尚缺乏文献报道,为该类假体的进一步应用与优化提供了临床证据。本研究亦存在一定局限性。首先,随访时间相对较短,尚无法得出更远期临床疗效与假体生存率的结论,未来需对研究患者继续随访。其次,研究为回顾性真实世界研究,在患者选择、假体选择方面可能存在偏倚,且未设置人群分组,观察指标亦存在一定测量偏倚,证据等级相对较低。此外,样本量有限且为单中心研究,其临床适用性仍需通过大样本、多中心前瞻性研究进一步验证。
综上述,初次TKA中,非骨水泥型膝关节假体在术后功能恢复、并发症发生率及假体生存率方面与骨水泥型假体效果相似,但其在不同人群中的远期疗效和生存率仍未明确。本研究所用国产3D打印金属骨小梁界面非骨水泥型假体的早期临床结果令人鼓舞,但仍需更长时间随访以明确其长期获益。
References
- 1.Bourne MH, Miller TL, Mariani EM Cumulative incidence of revision for a balanced knee system at a mean 8-year follow-up: A retrospective review of 500 consecutive total knee arthroplasties. Adv Orthop. 2019;2019:9580586. doi: 10.1155/2019/9580586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Asokan A, Plastow R, Kayani B, et al Cementless knee arthroplasty: a review of recent performance. Bone Jt Open. 2021;2(1):48–57. doi: 10.1302/2633-1462.21.BJO-2020-0172.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Chiou D, Li AK, Upfill-Brown A, et al Cementless compared to cemented total knee arthroplasty is associated with more revisions within 1 year of index surgery. Arthroplast Today. 2023;21:101122. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Polizzotti G, Lamberti A, Mancino F, et al. New horizons of cementless total knee arthroplasty[J/OL]. J Clin Med, 2023, 13(1). doi: 10.3390/jcm13010233.
- 5.Zhou K, Yu H, Li J, et al No difference in implant survivorship and clinical outcomes between full-cementless and full-cemented fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2018;53:312–319. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Martimbianco ALC, Calabrese FR, Iha LAN, et al Reliability of the “American Knee Society Score”(AKSS) Acta Ortop Bras. 2012;20(1):34–38. doi: 10.1590/S1413-78522012000100007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Miller AJ, Nadar AC, Granade CM, et al Cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasty using the same implant design: A mean 5-year follow-up study. J Knee Surg. 2024;37(10):724–729. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1785192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Goh GS, Fillingham YA, Sutton RM, et al. Cemented versus cementless total knee arthroplasty in obese patients with body mass index ≥35 kg/m2: A contemporary analysis of 812 patients[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2022, 37(4): 688-693.
- 9.Niemeläinen MJ, Mäkelä KT, Robertsson O, et al The effect of fixation type on the survivorship of contemporary total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 65 years of age: a register-based study of 115, 177 knees in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) 2000-2016. Acta Orthop. 2020;91(2):184–190. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1710373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Salem HS, Tarazi JM, Ehiorobo JO, et al Cementless fixation for total knee arthroplasty in various patient populations: A literature review. J Knee Surg. 2020;33(9):848–855. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1708880. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Abdel MP, Bonadurer GF 3rd, Jennings MT, et al Increased aseptic tibial failures in patients with a BMI ≥35 and well-aligned total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(12):2181–2184. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.057. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Sinicrope BJ, Feher AW, Bhimani SJ, et al Increased survivorship of cementless versus cemented TKA in the morbidly obese. A minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(2):309–314. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.10.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Chen C, Li R Cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasty in young patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):262. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1293-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Meehan JP, Danielsen B, Kim SH, et al Younger age is associated with a higher risk of early periprosthetic joint infection and aseptic mechanical failure after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2014;96(7):529–535. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mosher ZA, Bolognesi MP, Malkani AL, et al. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: A resurgence-who, when, where, and how?[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2024, 39(9 Suppl 2): S45-S53.
- 16.Ritter MA, Meneghini RM Twenty-year survivorship of cementless anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(4):507–513. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Helvie PF, Deckard ER, Meneghini RM Cementless total knee arthroplasty over the past decade: Excellent survivorship in contemporary designs. J Arthroplasty. 2023;38(6S):S145–S150. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.02.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Chen AG, Sogbein OA, McCalden RW, et al. Survivorship of modern cementless total knee arthroplasty: Analysis from the Canadian joint replacement registry[J]. J Arthroplasty, 2025, 40(2): 380-385.
- 19.Beaupré LA, al-Yamani M, Huckell JR, et al Hydroxyapatite-coated tibial implants compared with cemented tibial fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty. A randomized trial of outcomes at five years. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2007;89(10):2204–2211. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200710000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Horváth T, Hanák L, Hegyi P, et al Hydroxyapatite-coated implants provide better fixation in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Pulido L, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, et al The Mark Coventry Award: Trabecular metal tibial components were durable and reliable in primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):34–42. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3585-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Hampton M, Mansoor J, Getty J, et al. Uncemented tantalum metal components versus cemented tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: 11- to 15-year outcomes of a single-blinded randomized controlled trial[J]. Bone Joint J, 2020, 102-B(8): 1025-1032.
- 23.Karachalios T, Komnos G, Amprazis V, et al A 9-year outcome study comparing cancellous titanium-coated cementless to cemented tibial components of a single knee arthroplasty design. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(12):3672–3677. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.07.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Waddell DD, Sedacki K, Yang Y, et al Early radiographic and functional outcomes of a cancellous titanium-coated tibial component for total knee arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg. 2016;100(1):71–74. doi: 10.1007/s12306-015-0382-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
