The tibial component of total knee arthroplasty can either be an all-polyethylene (AP) implant or a metal-backed (MB) implant. This study aims to compare the five-year functional outcomes of AP tibial components to MB components in patients aged over 70 years. Secondary aims are to compare quality of life, implant survivorship, and cost-effectiveness. A group of 130 patients who had received an AP tibial component were matched for demographic factors of age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, sex, and preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) to create a comparison group of 130 patients who received a MB tibial component. Functional outcome was assessed prospectively by KSS, quality of life by 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12), and range of motion (ROM), and implant survivorships were compared. The SF six-dimension (6D) was used to calculate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for AP compared to MB tibial components using quality-adjusted life year methodology.Aims
Methods
To perform an incremental cost-utility analysis and assess the impact of differential costs and case volume on the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual (mUKA). This was a five-year follow-up study of patients who were randomized to rUKA (n = 64) or mUKA (n = 65). Patients completed the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) preoperatively, and at three months and one, two, and five years postoperatively, which was used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs for the primary and additional surgery and healthcare costs were calculated.Aims
Methods
The aims of this study were to assess mapping models to predict the three-level version of EuroQoL five-dimension utility index (EQ-5D-3L) from the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and validate these before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A retrospective cohort of 5,857 patients was used to create the prediction models, and a second cohort of 721 patients from a different centre was used to validate the models, all of whom underwent TKA. Patient characteristics, BMI, OKS, and EQ-5D-3L were collected preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Generalized linear regression was used to formulate the prediction models.Aims
Methods
Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes. Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty. This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice. Cite this article:
