Abstract
Aims: In this study, data from previously published survival analysis life tables of primary total condylar type TKRs has been combined to enable comparison of different design features. In particular, does posterior stabilisation or metal backing of the tibial component improve the longevity of primary cemented þxed bearing condylar type TKRs?Methods: To be included, the article had to give 5 or more years results of a primary cemented þxed bearing condylar type TKRs including a survival analysis life table. Series performed on a selected patient group (for example young age, elderly or rheumatoid arthritis) were excluded to reduce possible bias. When 2 series of the same implant from the same institution were available, the most recent article with the longest follow up was used. Results: Survival analysis data from 16 papers (5950 knees) was combined to compare design features. There was no difference in survival between posterior stabilised implants and those that were not or between metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components. Those all-polyethylene tibial components that were not stabilised had signiþcantly better survival than metal-backed, non stabilised tibial components and posterior stabilised, metalbacked components (p< 0.05) but not posterior stabilised, all-polyethylene components. Conclusions: Using the currently available literature, posterior stabilisation or metal backing of the tibial component does not improve the longevity of primary cemented þxed bearing condylar type TKRs.
Theses abstracts were prepared by Professor Dr. Frantz Langlais. Correspondence should be addressed to him at EFORT Central Office, Freihofstrasse 22, CH-8700 Küsnacht, Switzerland.
