Abstract
Background
There are few studies of total knee replacements with cemented tibia and uncemented femur (hybrid). Previous studies have not shown any difference in revision rate between different fixation methods, but these studies had few hybrid prostheses. This study evaluates the results of hybrid knee replacements based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR).
Patients and Methods
Primary total knee replacements without patella resurfacing, reported to the NAR during the years 1999–2009, were evaluated. Hinged-, posterior stabilized- and tumor prostheses were excluded. LCS- and Profix prostheses with conforming plus bearing were included. With the risk for revision at any cause as the primary end-point, 2945 hybrid knee replacements (HKR) were evaluated against 20838 cemented knee replacements (CKR). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex and preoperative diagnosis were used.
Results
Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 8 years was 94.0% (95% CI: 93.6–94.4) in the CKR group and 97.0% (95% CI: 96.0–98.0) in the HKR group. The HKR group was made op of three brands of prosthesis, LCS, LCS-complete and Profix. Profix was the only brand with a statistically significant difference between cemented and hybrid fixation. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 8 years was 97.7% (95% CI: 96.7–98.7) in hybrid Profix group (HPG) and 95.5% (95% CI: 94.7–96.3) in the cemented Profix group (CPG). The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a statistically significantly lower risk for revision in the HPG group (relative risk=0.44, 95% CI: 0.39–0.59, p<0.001). Mean operating time was 15 minutes longer in the CKR group.
Conclusion
Survivorship at 8 years of the hybrid primary total knee replacements was the same or superior compared to cemented total knee replacements depending on prosthesis brand Hybrid fixation seems to be a safe alternative to cemented fixation in total knee replacement surgery.
