Abstract
Introduction: The information in the literature about the relative merits of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is contradictory, with some favouring cementless fixation while others favouring cemented fixation. Cemented fixations give good survivorship but there is concern about the radiolucency which frequently develops around the tibial component. The exact cause of the occurrence of radiolucency is unknown but according to some, it may suggest suboptimal fixation.
Method: Sixty-two knees (31 in each group) were randomised to receive either cemented or cementless UKR components. The components were similar except that the cementless had a porous titanium and hydroxyappatite (HA) coating. Patients were prospectively assessed by an independent observer pre-operatively and annually thereafter. The clinical assessment included Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Scores and Tegner activity score. Fluoroscopically aligned radiographs were assessed for thickness and extent of radiolucency under the tibial implant.
Results: At one year there were no differences in the clinical outcome between the groups and there were no loose components. No radiolucencies thicker than 1mm were seen. At one year none of the cementless tibias and 30% of the cemented tibias had complete radiolucencies. One out of 31 cementless (3%) and 12 out of 31 cemented (39%) had partial radiolucencies. This difference between these two groups was high significant (p< 0 0001).
Conclusions: This study clearly demonstrates that the incidence of radiolucency beneath the tibial component is influenced by component design and method of fixation. With identical designs of tibial component none of the cementless components developed complete radiolucences whereas 30% of the cemented components did. We conclude that HA achieves better bone integration than cement.
Correspondence should be addressed to Mr T Wilton, c/o BOA, BASK at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England.
