Related ACE Reports
- Published: Mar 2017
- ACE Report #9600
AAOS2017: Despite early tibia bedding-in, similar stability with cementless v cemented UKA
Study Type: Randomized Trial
OE Level of Evidence: N/A
Journal Level of Evidence: N/A
CONFERENCE ACE REPORTS
This ACE Report is a summary of a conference presentation or abstract. The information provided has limited the ability to provide an accurate assessment of the risk of bias or the overall quality. Please interpret the results with caution as trials may be in progress and select results may have been presented.
Why was this study needed now?
Either cement or cementless fixation is available in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Few mid and long-term studies have been conducted evaluating implant stability and revision rates between fixation methods in UKA.
What was the principal research question?
In unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, is there any significant difference in component migration between cemented and cementless fixation, assessed after 5 years?
|Population:||48 patients scheduled for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Tantalum markers were inserted intraoperatively to facilitate postoperative radiostereometric analysis. (n=39 with completed 5-year follow-up)|
|Intervention:||Cementless group: Patients underwent UKA with cementless fixation. (n=20)|
|Comparison:||Cemented group: Patients underwent UKA with cemented fixation. (n=19)|
|Outcomes:||Radiostereometric analysis was performed to assess component translation and rotation. Clinical outcome was measured using the Oxford Knee Score.|
|Time:||Follow-up was scheduled for 3 and 6 months, and for 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively.|
What were the important findings?
What should I remember most?
How will this affect the care of my patients?
The authors responsible for this critical appraisal and ACE Report indicate no potential conflicts of interest relating to the content in the original publication.