Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

THE ALL POLY TIBIA: CHEAPER AND BETTER – AFFIRMS

Current Concepts in Joint Replacement (CCJR) – Spring 2014



Abstract

Total knee replacement is one of the most successful procedures in orthopaedic surgery. Although originally limited to more elderly and less active individuals, the inclusion criteria for TKA have changed, with ever younger, more active and heavier patients receiving TKA. Currently, wear debris related osteolysis and associated prosthetic loosening are major modes of failure for TKA implants of all designs.

Initially, tibial components were cemented all-polyethylene monoblock constructs. Subsequent long-term follow up studies of these implants have demonstrated excellent durability in survivorship studies out to twenty years. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component was one of the main causes of failure in these implants. Polyethylene wear with osteolysis around well fixed implants was rarely (if ever) observed.

Cemented metal-backed nonmodular tibial components were subsequently introduced to allow for improved tibial load distribution and to protect osteoporotic bone. Long-term studies have established that many one-piece nonmodular tibial components have maintained excellent durability.

Eventually, modularity between the polyethylene tibial component and the metal-backed tray was introduced in the mid-80s mainly to facilitate screw fixation for cementless implants. These designs also provided intra-operative versatility by allowing interchange of various polyethylene thicknesses, and to also aid the addition of stems and wedges. Other advantages included the reduction of inventory, and the potential for isolated tibial polyethylene exchanges as a simpler revision procedure. However, since the late 1980's, the phenomena of polyethylene wear and osteolysis have been observed much more frequently when compared with earlier eras. The reasons for this increased prevalence of synovitis, progressive osteolysis, and severe polyethylene wear remain unclear, but it is likely associated with the widespread use of both cementless and cemented modular tibial designs. Backside wear between the metal tray and polyethylene has been implicated.

Recent RSA studies comparing fixation of all-polyethylene to modular components has shown that their RSA migration patterns are superior and fixation is in fact better with the all-polyethylene construct. Further, in a recent meta-analysis, all-polyethylene components were equivalent to metal-backed components regarding revision rates and clinical scores.

The promise of modular tibial components affording a simple liner exchange to revise a knee has not borne out in the literature. Several studies have revealed that the effectiveness of isolated tibial insert exchange in revision TKR is of limited value. Isolated tibial insert exchange led to a surprisingly high rate of early failure. Tibial insert exchange as an isolated method of total knee revision should therefore be undertaken with caution even in circumstances for which the modular insert was designed and believed to be of greatest value.

Because of the modularity, extra materials, and extra processing, modular tibial components are significantly more expensive than all-polyethylene components.