Aims. The primary objective of this study was to compare migration of the cemented ATTUNE fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component with the cemented Press-Fit Condylar (PFC)-sigma fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component. The secondary objectives included comparing clinical and radiological outcomes and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Methods. A single blinded randomized, non-inferiority study was conducted including 74 patients. Radiostereometry examinations were made after weight bearing, but before hospital discharge, and at three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMS were collected preoperatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Radiographs for measuring radiolucencies were collected at two weeks and two years postoperatively. Results. The overall migration (mean maximum total point motion (MPTM)) at two years was comparable: mean 1.13 mm (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.97 to 1.30) for the ATTUNE and 1.16 mm (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.35) for the PFC-sigma. At two years, the mean backward tilting was -0.43° (95% CI, -0.65 to -0.21) for the ATTUNE and 0.08° (95% CI -0.16 to 0.31), for the PFC-sigma. Overall migration between the first and second postoperative year was negligible for both components. The clinical outcomes and PROMs improved compared with preoperative scores and were not different between groups. Radiolucencies at the implant-cement interface were mainly seen below the medial baseplate: 17% in the ATTUNE and 3% in the PFC-sigma at two weeks, and at two years 42% and 9% respectively (p = 0.001). Conclusion. In the first two postoperative years the initial version of the ATTUNE tibial component was not inferior with respect to overall migration, although it showed relatively more backwards tilting and radiolucent lines at the implant-cement interface than the PFC-sigma. The version of the ATTUNE tibial component examined in this study has subsequently undergone modification by the manufacturer. Level of Evidence: 1 (randomized controlled clinical trial). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1158–1166

Aims. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and safe orthopaedic procedure. Zimmer Biomet's NexGen is the second most popular brand of implant used in the UK. The primary cause of revision after the first year is aseptic loosening. We present our experience of using this implant, with significant concerns around its performance with regards early aseptic loosening of the tibial component. Methods. A retrospective, single-surgeon review was carried out of all of the NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized (LPS) TKAs performed in this institute. The specific model used for the index procedures was the NexGen Complete Knee System (Legacy Knee-Posterior Stabilized LPS-Flex Articular Surface, LPS-Flex Femoral Component Option, and Stemmed Nonaugmentable Tibial Component Option). Results. Between 2013 and 2016, 352 NexGen TKAs were carried out on 331 patients. A total of 62 TKAs have been revised to date, giving an all-cause revision rate of 17.6% at a minimum of five years. Three of these revisions were due to infection. Overall, 59 of the revisions were performed for aseptic loosening (16.7%) of the tibial component. The tibial component was removed intraoperatively without instrumentation due to significant tibial debonding between the implant-cement interface. Conclusion. While overall, we believe that early aseptic loosening is multi-factorial in nature, the significantly high aseptic revision rate, as seen by an experienced fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeon, has led us to believe that there is a fundamental issue with this NexGen implant design. Continued implant surveillance and rigorous review across all regions using this particular implant is warranted based on the concerning findings described here. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):495–501

Aims

Patient dissatisfaction is not uncommon following primary total knee arthroplasty. One proposed method to alleviate this is by improving knee kinematics. Therefore, we aimed to answer the following research question: are there significant differences in knee kinematics based on the design of the tibial insert (cruciate-retaining (CR), ultra-congruent (UC), or medial congruent (MC))?