Table 5.
Literature comparison between cemented and uncemented tibial components in TKA
| Study | Design of study | Number of patients | Followup (years) | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bassett [7] | Retrospective study comparing cemented versus uncemented Performance prosthesis (Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 416 cemented versus 584 uncemented | 5 | Slightly higher KSS average cementless versus cemented |
| Nilsson et al. [44] | PRCT comparing cemented versus uncemented Tricon-M TKA (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN, USA) | 25 cemented tibial component versus 20 uncemented | 2 | No significant difference in micromotion |
| Parker et al. [47] | PRCT comparing hybrid versus uncemented PCLR Miller-Galante I TKA (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USa) | 48 cemented tibial component versus 52 uncemented | 12.8 | No significant difference in survivorship |
| Bertin [8] | Cohort study comparing stemmed cemented versus pegged cemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USa) | 84 stemmed versus 141 pegged | 7 | No significant differences in KSS and SF-12 scores, radiographic and survivorship results |
| Park and Kim [46] | Cohort study comparing stemmed cemented versus pegged uncemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 50 stemmed cemented in one side versus 50 pegged uncemented in the other side | 14 | No significant differences in WOMAC, radiographic results, complications, and survivorship |
| Henricson et al. [23] | Cohort study comparing stemmed cemented versus Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 21 stemmed cemented versus 26 Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented, patients < 60 years | 2 | No significant differences in KSS score, radiographic results, and RSA migration |
| Dunbar et al. [14] | PRCT comparing stemmed cemented versus Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 21 stemmed cemented versus 28 Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented | 2 | No difference in WOMAC. Trabecular Metal™ component at lower risk of loosening than cemented component |
| Minoda et al. [41] | CCS comparing BMD cemented PFC Sigma® RP versus Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 28 PFC Sigma® cemented versus Trabecular Metal™ 28 NexGen® uncemented | 2 | No differences in KS score. Lower decrease in BMD using Trabecular Metal™ component in comparison to cemented component (p = 0.002) |
| Kamath et al. [30] | Cohort study comparing stemmed cemented versus Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 312 stemmed cemented versus 100 Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented, patients < 55 years | 5–7 | No significant differences in clinical or radiographic results, complications, and cost |
| Wilson et al. [67] | PCRT comparing stemmed cemented versus Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 18 stemmed cemented versus 27 Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented | 5 | No difference in WOMAC. Inducible displacement Trabecular Metal™ significant higher than cemented. No difference in proportion at risk for aseptic loosening |
| Current study | PRCT comparing stemmed cemented versus Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented NexGen® tibial component (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) | 63 stemmed cemented versus 69 Trabecular Metal™ monoblock uncemented | 5 | Significant difference in clinical results |
PRCT = prospective randomized control trial; PCLR = posterior cruciate ligament-retaining; CCS = case-control study; RSA = radiostereometric analysis; BMD = bone mineral density; KSS = Knee Society Score; KS = The Knee Society.