Abstract
While the vast majority of total knee replacements performed throughout the world employ a modular metal-backed tibial tray, and not an all-polyethylene tray, this issue remains controversial.
Proposed advantages to a metal-backed tray include: a) decreased bending strains, b) reduces compressive stresses in the cement and cancellous bone beneath the baseplate (especially in asymmetric loading), c) distributes load more evenly across the interface
Proposed advantages of an all-polyethylene tray include: a) cost reduction, b) reduced polyethylene thickness with the same amount of bone resection, c) increased tensile stresses at the interface during eccentric loading
The challenge is at present we don't know the >10-year track record of current generation tibial components. This debate centers on the <60-year-old. This is the most difficult patient in total knee arthroplasty with higher revision rates than an older cohort.
It makes sense to use an all-polyethylene tibia if the revision rates turn out to be similar and you don't intend to do a polyethylene exchange in the future. It makes sense to do a modular tray if the results are similar, but there is an intention to do a polyethylene exchange in the future. If either one of these implants choices has a lower cumulative revision rate, then that is the implant of choice at present.
However, we need to understand that at present we don't know if the results of current generation all-polyethylene tibial components will indeed be equal to metal-backed components. The most recent data from the Australian registry suggests that in fact all-polyethylene tibial components have a higher failure rate than metal-backed components when looking at the entire class of design. This would be expected to be even more significant in the younger patient.
