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
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.
48 patients scheduled for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty were randomized to either cementless or cemented fixation. Patients were assessed for component migration over 5-year follow-up using radiostereometric analysis. Results at 1-year Please login to view the rest of this report. Please login to view the rest of this report.
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.
Methods: RCT
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.