全膝关节置换术中骨水泥假体与非骨水泥假体生存率比较的系统评价

[目的]系统评价全膝关节置换术中应用骨水泥固定假体与非骨水泥固定假体的生存疗效,为临床治疗提供参考.[方法]全面搜索国内外关于全膝关节置换术中应用骨水泥固定假体和非骨水泥固定假体的临床对照研究资料,按照既定的纳入、排除标准,核定检出符合评价标准的文献,提取所需研究数据,采用RevMan 5.0.18软件进行Meta分析.[结果]纳入临床对照研究12篇,共计3 244膝全膝关节置换术,骨水泥固定假体组和非骨水泥固定假体组分别为1 877膝和1 367膝,假体生存率分别为96.7%和93.0%,荟萃分析加权后OR=2.58,95%CI(1.76,3.78),P＜0.05.亚组分析结果显示,不论是小于等于5年组还是大于5年组,均是骨水泥固定假体生存率高于非骨水泥假体生存率.[结论]全膝关节置换术中假体应用骨水泥固定与非骨水泥固定相比,术后假体生存率高,但二者间的比较仍需大规模多中心的RCT来进一步研究.     

非骨水泥型与骨水泥型胫骨平台假体在人工全膝关节置换中的中短期临床疗效比较

背景:目前,骨水泥型全膝关节置换术仍是全膝关节置换(total knee arthroplasty, TKA)的金标准,但随着假体制造工艺的提高,尤其是小梁金属在关节假体中的应用,逐渐克服了早期非骨水泥型TKA缺点,理论可获得更高的生存率,但其临床效果尚存争议。目的:比较非骨水泥钽金属一体化胫骨平台(tantalum monoblock tibial component, TMT)与骨水泥型胫骨平台在全膝关节置换中的中短期临床疗效。方法:回顾性研究2012年7月至2016年7月获得随访的440例因膝关节骨关节炎选用同系列股骨假体的TKA患者术后临床效果,其中,234例患者选用TMT,共350个膝关节;206例患者选用骨水泥型胫骨平台假体,共332个膝关节;比较分析两组术后关节活动度、KSS评分、VAS评分、WOMAC评分、SF-36评分、术后X线评价、并发症及中短期假体生存率。结果:两组术后ROM、KSS、VAS、WOMAC、SF-36等评分比较无统计学差异(P> 0.05); TMT组假体周围关节感染(periprosthetic joint infection, PJI)发生率较骨水泥组低(P=0.03),术后其他并发症及假体生存率方面两组间无统计学差异(P>0.05);末次影像学检查两组均未见>1 mm或进行性发展的透亮线,TMT组术后早期透亮线逐渐消失,展现出良好的骨长入特性;两组胫骨平台β角(胫骨假体内翻角)、δ角(胫骨假体后倾角)无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:与骨水泥型胫骨平台比较,TMT并未增加TKA术后膝关节早期功能锻炼的失败率,二者在临床效果、影像学评价等方面无统计学差异;但应用TMT的患者PJI发生率较低,并展现出良好的骨长入特性,因而理论上可获得更高的长期假体生存率。     

骨水泥与非骨水泥型假体全髋关节置换术后疗效比较的系统评价

[目的]系统评价骨水泥型与非骨水泥型假体全髋关节置换术后疗效。[方法]计算机检索(时间为1990~2013年12月)MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane CENTRAL(Fourth Quarter 2013)、ScienceDirect、OVID、SpringerLink数据库。制定纳入和排除标准,筛选出符合纳入标准的文献,评价纳入研究的方法学质量。利用RevMan5.1.1(下载于Cochrane Library)进行Meta分析。[结果]经过筛选,10篇研究符合纳入标准,共1015例,其中骨水泥组496例,非骨水泥组519例。Meta分析结果显示:骨水泥组与非骨水泥组比较,前者术后5年内疼痛改善率优于后者,差异存在统计学意义(95%CI 1.62[0.41,2.83],P=0.009);术后翻修率、Harris评分、并发症和死亡率等方面两种假体组间差异无统计学意义(P值分别为0.17,0.68,0.53,0.94)。[结论]骨水泥型与非骨水泥型假体全髋关节置换在治疗股骨颈骨折及髋关节疾病中均取得了良好的疗效。骨水泥与非骨水泥型假体总体生存率及翻修率无明显差异,骨水泥型假体早期患者疼痛改善方面优于非骨水泥型假体,两组术后患者髋关节功能均达到满意效果,二者术后并发症及死亡率基本相同。     

骨水泥与非骨水泥半髋关节置换治疗老年股骨颈骨折的Meta分析

[目的]应用Cochrane系统评价方法对半髋关节置换中骨水泥与非骨水泥假体临床疗效差异进行系统评价。[方法]计算机检索Cochrane Library,MEDLINE,Pub Med,Ovid,EMBASE,CBM,万方,VIP,CNKI等数据库,检索时间从建库至2015年5月,检索骨水泥型和非骨水泥半髋关节置换的随机对照试验文献(randomized controlled trials,RCTs),并进行Meta分析。[结果]共纳入18篇RCTs,共2 308例髋,结果显示骨水泥组手术时间长[MD=8.30,95%CI(6.86,9.74),P0.001],术中出血量多[MD=38.72,95%CI(0.11,77.32),P=0.05]。但假体并发症少[RR=0.29,95%CI(0.18,0.45),P0.00 001],术后1年大腿疼痛发生率少[OR=0.69,95%CI(0.55,0.87),P=0.002],翻修率、心脑血管并发症、死亡率、深静脉血栓形成两组间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。[结论]与非骨水泥组相比,骨水泥组手术时间长,术中出血量多,但假体并发症及疼痛方面有优势,且并没有增加死亡率、翻修率及深静脉血栓形成率。     

使用与不用骨水泥固定人工膝关节置换术后疗效的比较

探讨使用与不用骨水泥固定氧化铝陶瓷制NCU型TKA术后的疗效。1989～1995年,为了治疗晚期骨性关节病及类风湿病,共施行NCU型TKA68例103个关节。对获得平均随访5年8个月的65例99个关节的以胫骨假体为中心的临床评价及X线计测的结果进行了比较性分析。临床评价方法是以JOA膝关节评价基准为标准,X线的评价方法是将术前、术后、最终调查时的正侧位X线照片数字化后输入电子计算机利用电脑软件系统进行了计测与评价。65例99个关节TKA术后经随访5年以上的结果表明NCU型TKA术后获得了比较良好的疗效。术后并发症7％,再手术率5％,不用骨水泥组疗效劣于使用骨水泥固定组,两组间的疼痛评分及透亮线出现率的差异均有显著性统计学意义。     

骨水泥和非骨水泥型人工股骨双动头置换的临床疗效分析

[目的]比较骨水泥型与非骨水泥型人工股骨双动头治疗老年移位型股骨颈骨折的疗效。[方法]本科2005年1月～2007年5月收治的股骨颈骨折(GardenⅢ、Ⅳ型)患者100例,其中男31例,女69例,年龄70～98岁,平均78.3岁。左髋52例,右髋48例。手术均为同一术者操作,全部患者随机分为两组,各50例,采用骨水泥和非骨水泥股骨假体治疗。术后随访5年。主要观察指标:手术时间,术中失血,并发症,视觉模拟评分,髋关节Harris评分、病死率和假体翻修率。组间比较采用两样本t检验,P<0.05为差异有显著性意义。[结果]骨水泥组手术时间平均57min,非骨水泥组平均47min,术中失血骨水泥组平均238ml,非水泥组230ml。视觉模拟评分及Harris评分两组无明显差异。手术并发症:非水泥组(28例)多于水泥组(21例)。两组均未见明显髋臼磨损。翻修非水泥组(2例)多于水泥组(1例)。随访各时间点的死亡率两组无明显差异。[结论]人工股骨双动头治疗老年股骨颈移位骨折,在手术时间上,非水泥组占优,并发症方面,骨水泥组占优,术中失血,视觉模拟评分,髋关节Harris评分,髋臼磨损率,病死率和假体翻修率方面两组没有显著差别。     

骨水泥与非骨水泥股骨柄在初次全髋关节置换术后疗效的Meta分析

目的：系统评价骨水泥与非骨水泥股骨柄在初次全髋关节置换术后的疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、OVID、Highwire、SpringerLink、ScienceDirect、Cochrane 图书馆、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库文献及手工检索相关文献,收集有关骨水泥与非骨水泥股骨柄在初次全髋关节置换术的随机对照试验,根据考克兰协作组织标准评价纳入试验质量,用Revman5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果纳入11篇文献,共1651例患者,骨水泥髋801例、非骨水泥髋850例。 Meta分析结果示：不限年龄和随访年限,术后翻修率骨水泥固定和非骨水泥固定差异无统计学意义[ OR＝3.20,95％CI （0.72,14.22）, P＞0.05],5年以内随访术后翻修率两种固定方式差异无统计学意义[OR＝0.41,95％CI （0.15,1.16）, P＞0.05],5年以上随访术后翻修率骨水泥固定较非水泥固定股骨柄高,差异有统计学意义[OR＝5.92,95％CI （2.68,13.07）, P＜0.01],术后大腿痛发生率骨水泥固定较非骨水泥固定低,差异有统计学意义[OR＝0.51,95％CI （0.28,0.94）, P＜0.05],术后Harris评分[MD ＝0.6,95％CI （-0.79,1.99）, P＞0.05],松动率[OR ＝1.31,95％CI （0.27,6.30）, P＞0.05]、骨折发生率[OR＝0.91,95％CI （0.3,2.7）, P＞0.05]、感染率[OR＝2.46,95％CI （0.7,8.58）, P＞0.05]、异位骨化发生率[OR＝0.91,95％CI （0.63,1.33）, P＞0.05]和脱位率[OR＝3.11,95％CI （0.6,16.10）, P＞0.05]二者差异无统计学差异。结论骨水泥与非骨水泥固定股骨柄在初次全髋关节置换术后均有满意的效果,非骨水泥固定股骨柄5年以上稳定性较骨水泥好,但术后大腿痛的发生率较骨水泥固定柄高。     

骨水泥型与非骨水泥型人工全髋关节置换术的比较

目的评价骨水泥型和非骨水泥型人工全髋关节置换术的术中、术后临床效果。方法对52例患者(54髋)进行人工髋关节置换治疗,其中骨水泥组20例(20髋),非骨水泥组32例(34髋)。术后随访进行髋关节Harris评分、自主功能恢复Parker评分,并观察术后死亡率、假体翻修率及其他并发症的发生情况。结果与骨水泥型组相比,非骨水泥型组术中手术时间短、失血量少,两组差异有显著性(P0.05)。骨水泥组1例患者住院时出现深静脉血栓形成,非骨水泥组有3例住院时出现深静脉血栓形成。骨水泥组置换后3个月,14例患者可独立行走,5例需助步器辅助行走,1例仅能活动(卧床活动);非骨水泥组23例患者可独立行走,9例需助步器辅助行走。置换后1年,在患者髋关节Harris评分和患者自主功能恢复Parker评分方面,两组之间均无显著差异。置换后3年,骨水泥组有4例翻修(均为假体松动),翻修率20%。而非骨水泥组仅有3例翻修(均为假体松动),翻修率9.37%,但两组之间差异无显著性(P0.05)。另外,随访期间骨水泥组有1例患者死亡。结论应用非骨水泥假体可明显降低全髋关节置换术的手术时间和失血量。随访期内骨水泥型和非骨水泥型双动头假体置换术的临床疗效无显著差异。     

人工全髋置换骨水泥和无骨水泥假体术后疗效及假臼可能生存率比较

目的评价人工全髋关节置换术骨水泥和无骨水泥假体术后假臼可能生存率。方法对105例(108髋)进行随访,其中骨水泥组62例(63髋),无骨水泥组43例(45髋),并对术后患者进行综合性评价和分析。结果两组患者术后假臼可能生存率无显著差异。结论无论骨水泥假体还是无骨水泥假体患者术后疗效相似,假体都没有达到理想固定的效果。     

骨水泥型股骨头置换治疗高龄患者股骨颈骨折有效性与安全性随机对照研究的Meta分析

目的 通过Meta分析对骨水泥型股骨头置换治疗高龄患者股骨颈骨折的有效性与安全性进行评价. 方法 计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国期刊全文数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库等,检索时间均为建库至2012年12月,获取骨水泥型股骨头置换(骨水泥组)与非骨水泥型股骨头置换(非骨水泥组)治疗高龄患者骨质疏松性股骨颈骨折的随机对照试验.比较两组患者的术后关节功能、病死率、并发症发生率、手术时间、术中出血量及再手术率等.采用RevMan 5.2统计学软件进行Meta分析. 结果 共纳入7篇随机对照试验,共1108例患者1115髋.文献质量评价结果显示纳入研究质量较高.Meta分析结果显示:与非骨水泥组比较,骨水泥组患者术后关节功能恢复良好,假体相关并发症发生率更低[OR =0.15,95％ CI(0.09,0.26),P＜0.001],但手术时间延长[MD=7.43,95％ CI(5.37,9.49),P＜0.001].两组患者局部并发症发生率、其他并发症发生率、病死率、术中出血量及再手术率比较差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05). 结论 与非骨水泥型股骨头置换术相比,骨水泥型股骨头置换治疗高龄患者股骨颈骨折虽然手术时间延长,但术中出血量未见明显增加,且具有术后关节功能恢复快、假体相关并发症少等优点,同时不增加病死率及再手术率.     

A randomised,controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement. Ten-year survival analysis

We have carried out a long-term survival analysis of a prospective, randomised trial comparing cemented with cementless fixation of press-fit condylar primary total knee replacements. A consecutive series of 501 replacements received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation. The patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (2.7 to 13.0) to establish the rate of survival of the implant. The ten-year survival was compared using life-table and Cox's proportional hazard analysis. No patient was lost to follow-up. The survival at ten years was 95.3% (95% CI 90.3 to 97.8) and 95.6% (95% CI 89.5 to 98.2) in the cemented and cementless groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for failure in cemented compared with cementless prostheses was 0.97 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.6). A comparison of the clinical outcome at ten years in 80 knees showed no difference between the two groups. The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement at ten years is good irrespective of the method of fixation and brings into question the use of more expensive cementless implants.     

A randomised controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement: 15-year survival analysis

We report the long-term survival of a prospective randomised consecutive series of 501 primary knee replacements using the press-fit condylar posterior cruciate ligament-retaining prosthesis. Patients received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation. Altogether, 44 of 501 knees (8.8%) underwent revision surgery (24 cemented vs 20 cementless). For cemented knees the 15-year survival rate was 80.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71.5 to 87.4) and for cementless knees it was 75.3% (95% CI 63.5 to 84.3). There was no significant difference between the two groups (cemented vs cementless; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.52, p = 0.55). When comparing the covariates there was no significant difference in the rates of survival between the side of operation (HR 0.58, p = 0.07), age (HR 0.97, p = 0.10) and diagnosis (HR 1.25 p = 0.72). However, there was a significant gender difference, with males having a higher failure rate with cemented fixation (HR 2.48, p = 0.004). Females had a similar failure rate in both groups. This single-surgeon series, with no loss to follow-up, provides reliable data of the revision rates of one of the most commonly-used total knee replacements. The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement remained good at 15 years, irrespective of the method of fixation.     

便携式导航辅助全膝关节置换术力线校准的Meta分析

目的应用Meta分析的方法评价便携式导航辅助全膝关节置换术(TKA)与常规人工TKA对术后下肢机械轴线和假体力线的影响。 方法检索Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、中国期刊全文数据库、维普咨迅数据库及万方数据库等数据库,根据纳入标准(测量了下肢力线的便携式导航辅助和常规初次TKA临床研究)和排除标准(膝关节内外翻畸形大于15°、术侧髋关节异常),收集所有相关的随机对照试验和非随机对照试验,检索截止日期为2018年5月,由两名评价员独立筛查文献、提取资料和方法学质量评估,采用Cochrane协作网提供的软件Rev Man 5.3.0软件进行Meta分析。 结果一共纳入11篇临床文献(4篇随机对照试验,7篇非随机对照试验),分析1 334膝,其中导航组641膝,常规组693膝。Meta分析结果显示：导航组下肢机械轴线偏离±3°离群个数少于常规组,差异有统计学意义[RR ＝0.57,95%CI(0.43,0.76),P<0.05],而冠状面股骨假体力线[RR ＝0.45,95%CI(0.20,1.06),P ＝0.07]、冠状面胫骨假体力线[RR ＝0.67,95%CI(0.41,1.11),P ＝0.12]、矢状面股骨假体力线[RR ＝1.03,95%CI(0.72,1.46),P ＝0.89]、矢状面胫骨假体力线[RR ＝1.13,95%CI(0.62,2.07),P ＝0.69]两组间差异均无统计学意义。 结论便携式导航辅助TKA恢复下肢机械轴线的精准性优于常规人工TKA,但两者在恢复冠状面和矢状面假体植入位置准确性方面无差异;上述结果尚需要更多高质量、大样本及多中心随机试验来进一步验证。     

计算机导航与传统人工全膝关节置换临床疗效的Meta分析

目的使用Meta分析的方法,系统评价应用计算机导航技术与传统技术对人工全膝关节置换术(TKA)后临床疗效的影响。 方法计算机检索Pubmed、CNKI、Springer Link等国内外数据库,检索2007年01月01日至2017年05月01日中关于计算机导航与传统全膝关节置换术的临床效果比较的随机对照试验(RCTs),文献纳入标准为初次TKA,且以计算机辅助导航技术为实验组的临床随机对照研究,排除标准为数据可疑或不符合纳入标准的文献。通过RevMan 5.3软件对数据进行Meta分析,比较计算机导航与传统技术TKA术后的临床疗效。 结果最终共纳入随机对照试验15篇。资料分析后显示,两种手术方法对术后股骨假体冠状位角度[MD ＝－0.03,95%CI(－0.60,0.53),P>0.05],股骨假体冠状位角内/外翻角度>3°[RR＝0.79,95%CI(0.60,1.05),P>0.05]、术后股骨假体旋转角度>3°发生数量[RR＝0.78,95%CI(0.60,1.01),P >0.05]、术后股骨假体矢状位角>3°发生数量[RR＝0.82,95%CI(0.49,1.39),P＝0.47]、术后胫骨假体冠状位角度[MD＝－0.32,95%CI(－0.93,0.29),P>0.05]、术后膝关节协会功能评分(KSFS)[MD＝5.26,95%CI(－1.52,12.04),P>0.05]、术中失血量[MD ＝－17.23,95%CI(－46.43,11.97),P>0.05]及术后并发症[RR＝1.29,95%CI(0.53,3.15),P＝0.58]等方面的差异无统计学意义;在手术时间方面,导航组时间长于传统组[MD＝13.4,95%CI(9.40,16.67),P<0.01],差异有统计学意义;在术后下肢机械轴角度[MD＝－0.67,95%CI(－1.08,－0.25),P<0.01]、下肢机械轴内/外翻>3°发生数量[RR＝0.60,95%CI(0.50,0.71),P<0.01]、术后胫骨假体冠状位内/外翻角>3°发生数量[RR＝0.50,95%CI(0.28,0.90),P <0.05]、术后胫骨假体矢状位角度[MD ＝－1.26,95%CI(－1.80,－0.72),P<0.01]、胫骨假体矢状位角内/外翻>3°发生数量[RR＝0.61,95%CI(0.44,0.83),P<0.01]、术后股骨假体矢状位角度[MD＝－0.64,95%CI(－0.84,－0.44),P<0.01]、术后膝关节协会评分(KSS)[MD＝1.89,95%CI(1.10,2.68),P<0.01]、术后膝关节活动度[MD＝2.36,95%CI(0.79,3.93),P<0.01]的比较上,导航组优于传统组,差异有统计学意义。 结论计算机导航技术可提高全膝关节置换术中假体的安装精确度,改善术后膝关节活动度,有利于术后膝关节功能评价。虽然使用导航技术增加了手术时间,但是两组在术中出血量及术后并发症方面并没有明显差异。     

生物型与水泥型单髁置换术治疗膝关节病的Meta分析

目的比较生物型与水泥型人工膝关节单髁置换术治疗内侧间室膝骨关节病的临床疗效。 方法检索Pubmed、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、循证医学数据库(Cochrane Library)、Web of science、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)和万方数据库2000年1月至2019年10月所有关于生物型与水泥型人工膝关节单髁置换术治疗内侧间室膝关节病的临床随机对照研究(RCT)和非随机对照研究(CCT)。排除重复文献,低质量文献,观察指标不符文献以及无法获得全文的文献。采用Cochrane风险评估工具及纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)对纳入研究的文献进行质量评价。使用Revman 5.3进行Meta分析,比较两种固定方式在假体周围透亮线,5年假体生存率,牛津大学膝关节评分(OKS),并发症,手术时间等方面的差异。 结果共纳入文献9篇,累计病例18 702例,其中生物组8 735例,水泥组9 967例。Meta分析结果显示：生物型单髁组与水泥型单髁组比较,生物型单髁组假体周围完全透亮线的发生率更低[比值比(OR)＝0.08,95%置信区间(CI)(0.01,0.42),P＝0.003],膝关节OKS功能评分更高[均数差(MD)＝2.08,95%CI(0.51,3.65),P＝0.009],5年假体生存率更高[OR＝1.39,95% CI(1.20,1.60),P<0.0001],手术时间更短[MD＝-9.23,95% CI(-13.72,-4.74),P<0.0001],在并发症的发生率方面,两组间差异无统计学意义[OR＝0.43,95% CI(0.17,1.09),P＝0.07]。 结论与水泥型单髁相比,生物型单髁可以降低假体周围完全透亮线的发生率,提高膝关节功能及5年假体生存率,缩短手术时间,且不会增加并发症的发生,在临床值得推广应用。     

Tibial component fixation with a peri-apatite coating: evaluation by radiostereometric analysis in a canine total knee arthroplasty model

Cementless fixation for the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains problematic. Peri-Apatite (PA), a solution-deposited hydroxyapatite, is under investigation as an option for improving the fixation of cementless tibial components. In this study, radiostereometric analysis was used to document implant migration in 48 dogs that underwent TKA with cementless, PA-coated, or cemented tibial components. Migration at 12 weeks was similar in the 2 groups. At 12 months, there was greater migration in the PA-coated group, but the difference between the 2 groups was below the threshold considered clinically significant. In this canine TKA model, cementless fixation with PA performed less well than did cemented fixation, but not to a degree that would make a clinical difference in the short term.     

Surgical factors for total knee arthroplasty in younger patients

With improvements in implant modularity and polyethylene, it is important to assess the contemporary performance of cement vs. cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Aseptic loosening is the most common indication for revision. Registry data indicates that the type of fixation (cemented, cementless, or hybrid) makes little difference in revision rates for younger patients (<55 years old). Regardless of the type of fixation, there is an opportunity for improvement. Attention to surgical factors, such as coronal alignment and cementing technique, can improve the survivorship of TKA.     

The Use of Cementless Components Does Not Significantly Increase Procedural Costs in Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundModern cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs have shown promising early clinical success; however, concerns exist regarding the higher cost of the cementless implants. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the total facility cost of cementless vs traditional cemented TKA along with the effect of cementless fixation on short-term outcomes.MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of patients between 2015 and 2017 who underwent either cementless or cemented primary TKA. Itemized facility costs were calculated for every procedure using a time-driven activity-based costing algorithm. Controlling for demographic variables and medical comorbidities, we performed a multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for facility costs following TKA. Short-term outcome metrics including complications, readmissions, and patient-reported outcomes were compared between groups.ResultsAmong the 2426 primary TKA patients in this study, 119 (4.91%) were performed using cementless implants. When compared to cemented TKA, cementless TKA patients had higher implant costs ($3047.80 vs $2808.73, P < .0001), but lower supply costs ($639.49 vs $815.57, P < .0001) and lower operating room personnel costs ($982.01 vs $1238.26, P < .0001). When controlling for confounding variables, cementless fixation did not have a significant effect on total facility cost or outcomes.ConclusionIn conclusion, the use of cementless TKA implants did not significantly increase total procedural costs when compared to traditional cemented TKA components at our institution. Our data suggest that the increased cost of a cementless implant is recouped through savings in cost of cement and supplies, as well as shorter operative times. The authors encourage investigators at other institutions to use the authors' methodology to evaluate (preferably in a prospective manner) whether the findings from this study can be corroborated.     

Total hip replacement:A meta-analysis to evaluate survival of cemented,cementless and hybrid implants

AIM To determine whether cemented, cementless, or hybrid implant was superior to the other in terms of survival rate.METHODS Systematic searches across MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane that compared cemented, cementless and hybrid total hip replacement(THR) were performed. Two independent reviewers evaluated the risk ratios of revision due to any cause, aseptic loosening, infection, and dislocation rate of each implants with a pre-determined form. The risk ratios were pooled separately for clinical trials, cohorts and registers before pooled altogether using fixed-effect model. Meta-regressions were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity. Funnel plots were analyzed. RESULTS Twenty-seven studies comprising 5 clinical trials, 9 cohorts, and 13 registers fulfilled the research criteria and analyzed. Compared to cementless THR, cemented THR have pooled RR of 0.47(95%CI: 0.45-0.48), 0.9(0.84-0.95), 1.29(1.06-1.57) and 0.69(0.6-0.79) for revision due to any reason, revision due to aseptic loosening, revision due to infection, and dislocation respectively. Compared to hybrid THR, the pooled RRs of cemented THR were 0.82(0.76-0.89), 2.65(1.14-6.17), 0.98(0.7-1.38), and 0.67(0.57-0.79) respectively. Compared to hybrid THR, cementless THR had RRs of 0.7(0.65-0.75), 0.85(0.49-1.5), 1.47(0.93-2.34) and 1.13(0.98-1.3).CONCLUSION Despite the limitations in this study, there was some tendency that cemented fixation was still superior than other types of fixation in terms of implant survival.     

Increased Survivorship of Cementless versus Cemented TKA in the Morbidly Obese. A Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the morbidly obese patients can be challenging with an increased risk of complications. Studies have shown increased aseptic failures with well-aligned cemented TKAs in the obese patient. The purpose of this study is to determine if TKA in the morbidly obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 40) using cementless implants would demonstrate improved results and survivorship compared to cemented TKA at a minimum 5-year follow-up.