Abstract
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is reliable, durable, and reproducible in relieving pain and improving function in patients with arthritis of the knee joint. Cemented fixation is the gold standard with low rates of loosening and excellent survivorship in several large clinical series and joint registries. While cementless knee designs have been available for the past 3 decades, changing patient demographics (i.e. younger patients), improved implant designs and materials, and a shift towards TKA procedures being performed in ambulatory surgery centers has rekindled the debate of the role of cementless knee implants in TKA.
The drive towards achieving biologic implant fixation in TKA is also driven by the successful transition from cemented hip implants to uncemented THA. However, new technologies and new techniques must be adopted as a result of an unmet need, significant improvement, and/or clinical advantage. Thus, the questions remain: 1) Why switch; and 2) Is cementless TKA more reliable, durable, or reproducible compared to cemented TKA?
There are several advantages to using cement during TKA. First, the technique can be universally applied to all cases without exception and without concerns for bone health or structure. Second, cement can mask imprecisions in bone cuts and is a remarkably durable grout. Third, cement allows for antibiotic delivery at the time surrounding surgery which has been shown in some instances to reduce the risk of subsequent infection. Finally, cement fixation has provided successful and durable fixation across various types knee designs, surface finishes, and articulations.
On the other hand, cementless knee implants have had an inconsistent track record throughout history. While some have fared very well, others have exhibited early failures and high revision rates. Behery et al. reported on a series of 70 consecutive cases of cementless TKA matched with 70 cemented TKA cases based on implant design and demographics and found that cementless TKA was associated with a greater risk of aseptic loosening and revision surgery at 5 years follow up. Finally, to date, there has not been a randomised controlled clinical trial demonstrating superiority of cementless fixation compared to cemented fixation in TKA.
Improvements in materials and designs have definitely made cementless TKA designs viable. However, concerns with added cost, reproducibility, and durability remain. Cement fixation has withstood the test of time and is not the main cause of TKA failure. Therefore, until there is significant data showing that cementless TKA is more durable, reliable, and reproducible compared to cemented TKA, the widespread use of these implants cannot be recommended.
