Aims. The primary objective of this registry-based study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the first postoperative year. The secondary objective was to assess one- and three-year implant survival of both fixation techniques. Methods. We analyzed 10,862 cementless and 7,917 cemented UKA cases enrolled in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry, operated between 2017 and 2021. Pre- to postoperative change in outcomes at six and 12 months’ follow-up were compared using mixed model analyses. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were applied to quantify differences in implant survival. Adjustments were made for patient-specific variables and annual hospital volume. Results. Change from baseline in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and activity-related pain was comparable between groups. Adjustment for covariates demonstrated a minimally greater decrease in rest-related pain in the cemented group (β = -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to -0.01)). Cementless fixation was associated with a higher probability of achieving an excellent OKS outcome (> 41 points) (adjusted odds ratio 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). The likelihood of one-year implant survival was greater for cemented implants (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.71)), with higher revision rates for periprosthetic fractures of cementless implants. During two to three years’ follow-up, the likelihood of implant survival was non-significantly greater for cementless UKA (adjusted HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.04)), primarily due to increased revision rates for tibial loosening of cemented implants. Conclusion. Cementless and cemented medial UKA led to comparable improvement in physical function and pain reduction during the initial postoperative year, albeit with a greater likelihood of achieving excellent OKS outcomes after cementless UKA. Anticipated differences in early physical function and pain should not be a decisive factor in the choice of fixation technique. However, surgeons should consider the differences in short- and long-term implant survival when deciding which implant to use. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):401–410

Aims. The mean age of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has reduced with time. Younger patients have increased expectations following TKA. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is the most common cause of failure of TKA in the UK. Interest in cementless TKA has re-emerged due to its encouraging results in the younger patient population. We review a large series of tantalum trabecular metal cementless implants in patients who are at the highest risk of revision surgery. Methods. A total of 454 consecutive patients who underwent cementless TKA between August 2004 and December 2021 were reviewed. The mean follow-up was ten years. Plain radiographs were analyzed for radiolucent lines. Patients who underwent revision TKA were recorded, and the cause for revision was determined. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Island, the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey (NJR) were compared with our series. Results. No patients in our series had evidence of radiolucent lines on their latest radiological assessment. Only eight patients out of 454 required revision arthroplasty, and none of these revisions were indicated for aseptic loosening of the tibial baseplate. When compared to data from the NJR annual report, Kaplan-Meier estimates from our series (2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 5.87)) show a significant reduction in cumulative estimates of revision compared to all cemented (4.82 (95% CI 4.69 to 4.96)) or cementless TKA (5.65 (95% CI 5.23 to 6.10)). Our data (2.94 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.87)) also show lower cumulative revision rates compared to the most popular implant (PFC Sigma Cemented Knee implant fixation, 4.03 (95% CI 3.75 to 4.33)). The prosthesis time revision rate (PTIR) estimates for our series (2.07 (95% CI 0.95 to 3.83)) were lower than those of cemented cases (4.53 (95% CI 4.49 to 4.57)) from NJR. Conclusion. The NexGen trabecular (tantalum) cementless implant has lower revision rates in our series compared to all cemented implants and other types of cementless implants, and its use in younger patients should be encouraged. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):277–285

Aims. Thresholds of acceptable early migration of the components in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have traditionally ignored the effects of patient and implant factors that may influence migration. The aim of this study was to determine which of these factors are associated with overall longitudinal migration of well-fixed tibial components following TKA. Methods. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) data over a two-year period were available for 419 successful primary TKAs (267 cemented and 152 uncemented in 257 female and 162 male patients). Longitudinal analysis of data using marginal models was performed to examine the associations of patient factors (age, sex, BMI, smoking status) and implant factors (cemented or uncemented, the size of the implant) with maximum total point motion (MTPM) migration. Analyses were also performed on subgroups based on sex and fixation. Results. In the overall group, only fixation was significantly associated with migration (p < 0.001). For uncemented tibial components in males, smoking was significantly associated with lower migration (p = 0.030) and BMI approached significance (p = 0.061). For females with uncemented components, smoking (p = 0.081) and age (p = 0.063) approached significance and were both associated with increased migration. The small number of self-reported smokers in this study warrants cautious interpretation and further investigation. For cemented components in females, larger sizes of tibial component were significantly associated with increased migration (p = 0.004). No factors were significant for cemented components in males. Conclusion. The migration of uncemented tibial components was more sensitive to patient factors than cemented implants. These differences were not consistent by sex, suggesting that it may be of value to evaluate female and male patients separately following TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):444–451

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: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):48–57

Background. In recent years, the use of modern cementless implants in total knee arthroplasty has been increasing in popularity. These implants take advantage of new technologies such as additive manufacturing and potentially provide a promising alternative to cemented implant designs. The purpose of this study was to compare implant migration and tibiofemoral contact kinematics of a cementless primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implanted using either a gap balancing (GB) or measured resection (MR) surgical technique. Methods. Thirty-nine patients undergoing unilateral TKA were recruited and assigned based on surgeon referral to an arthroplasty surgeon who utilizes either a GB (n = 19) or a MR (n = 20) surgical technique. All patients received an identical fixed-bearing, cruciate-retaining beaded peri-apatite coated cementless femoral component and a pegged highly porous cementless tibial baseplate with a condylar stabilizing tibial insert. Patients underwent a baseline radiostereometric analysis (RSA) exam at two weeks post-operation, with follow-up visits at six weeks, three months, six months, and one year post-operation. Migration including maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the femoral and tibial components was calculated over time. At the one year visit patients also underwent a kinematic exam using the RSA system. Results. Mean MTPM of the tibial component at one year post-operation was not different (mean difference = 0.09 mm, p = 0.980) between the GB group (0.85 ± 0.37 mm) and the MR group (0.94 ± 0.41 mm). Femoral component MTPM at one year post-operation was also not different (mean difference = 0.27 mm, p = 0.463) between the GB group (0.62 ± 0.34 mm) and the MR group (0.89 ± 0.44 mm). Both groups displayed a lateral pivot pattern with similar frequencies of condylar separation. Conclusion. There was no difference in implant migration and kinematics of a single-radius, cruciate retaining cementless TKA performed using a GB or MR surgical technique. The magnitude of migration suggests there is no risk of early loosening. The results provide support for the use of a cementless TKA as a viable alternative to cemented fixation

Introduction. Bone mineral density (BMD) is correlated with component migration and aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Older implant designs have demonstrated BMD loss up to 23% in the first 6 months after TKA, and continued to BMD decline at an average of 5% per year for as long as 2 years after TKA. The impact of component design and fixation method on BMD loss after TKA in modern implant designs has not been fully elucidated. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of tibial tray thickness and fixation method (cemented versus cementless) on BMD loss patterns of the proximal tibia in two different modern TKA implant systems. Methods. A prospective, nonrandomized, single center study of patients undergoing primary TKA by one of two surgeons was performed with four study cohorts: cemented DePuy Attune, cementless DePuy Attune, cemented Stryker Triathlon, cementless Stryker Triathlon. Target sample size was 80, with 20 per cohort based on adhoc power analysis. Exclusion criteria included: age over 75, BMI >40, inflammatory arthritis, previous knee surgery involving the femur, tibia or tibial bone, and diagnosis of osteopenia/osteoporosis. Implant fixation type was based on surgeon intraoperative assessment of patient bone quality. Demographic data was collected preoperatively. Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) Bone Density Monitoring was performed at 6 weeks and one year postoperatively. Bone mineral density was calculated from the DEXA scans for 4 zones for the tibia relative to the keel or central peg: anterior, posterior, medial and lateral. Results were reported as BMD at 1 year postoperatively as a percentage of BMD at 6 weeks postoperatively. Results. 81 knees with complete DEXA studies at 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively were available for analysis. The mean (SD) age at the time of surgery was 65.4 years (6.1), with 39 men and 42 women and a mean (SD) BMI of 31.2 kg/m. 2. (4.7). The patients who received cementless implants were significantly younger with a mean (SD) age of 62.1 (6.0) than those who received cemented implants with a mean age of 69.1 (3.7) (p < 0.05). There was no difference in age between implant type (p > 0.05). There was no difference in BMI or gender distribution between implant types or fixation type (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in mean BMD loss between 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively between the cemented and cementless Triathlon in any zone, between the cemented Triathlon and Attune in any zone, the cementless Triathlon and Attune in any zone, and the cemented and cementless attune in the lateral, anterior and posterior proximal tibia (p > 0.05). There was significantly more BMD loss seen in the medial tibia in the cemented (BMD at 1 year 88% of BMD at 6 weeks) than cementless (BMD at 1 year 103% of BMD at 6 weeks) Attune (p = 0.043). Conclusion. BMD loss at 1 year postoperatively versus 6 weeks postoperatively after TKA with two modern implant designs is not significantly affected by tibial tray thickness. BMD loss was unaffected by fixation type for the Stryker Triathlon, but was significant less for the cementless DePuy Attune than the cemented version

Introduction. In the setting of periprosthetic joint infection, the complete removal of implants and cement can be challenging with well-fixed, cemented implants about the knee. This can get especially complex in the setting of long cemented femoral stems. Osteotomies are well described in the proximal femur and tibia for removal of implants and cement. There is little information available on distal femoral osteotomies to facilitate knee implant and retained cement removal. Methods. We describe a novel anterolateral oblique distal femoral osteotomy for the removal of well-fixed, cemented components during resection knee arthroplasty that preserves vascularity to the osteotomized segment. Cadaveric anatomic vascular injection studies were performed to document vascularity of the osteotomized segment. Clinical examples, and results will be presented. Results. Anatomic vascular studies documented preserved vascularity to the osteotomized segment. In two patients intramedullary infected implant and cement was completely removed. At reimplantation and final followup the osteotomy was radiographically healed, implants well fixed, and no recurrent infections were noted. Conclusions. This osteotomy appears to be useful when removing well fixed, cemented femoral components during periprosthetic infection. Vascularity and union was preserved and obtained in all patients. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity had a detrimental effect on the long-term performance and survival of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs).

Aims

A novel enhanced cement fixation (EF) tibial implant with deeper cement pockets and a more roughened bonding surface was released to market for an existing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system.This randomized controlled trial assessed fixation of the both the EF (ATTUNE S+) and standard (Std; ATTUNE S) using radiostereometric analysis.

Aims

The optimal bearing surface design for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) UKAs from a single high-volume institution.

Aims

This multicentre retrospective observational study’s aims were to investigate whether there are differences in the occurrence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between the conventional Attune baseplate and its successor, the novel Attune S+, independent from other potentially influencing factors; and whether tibial baseplate design and presence of RLLs are associated with differing risk of revision.

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the actual cost of a cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedure. Materials and Methods. The cost of operative time, implants, cement, and cementing accessories were included in the overall cost of the TKA procedure. Operative time was determined from a previously published study comparing cemented and cementless implants of the same design. The cost of operative time, implants, cement, and cementing accessories was determined from market and institutional data. Results. Mean operative time for cemented TKA was 11.6 minutes longer for cemented TKA than cementless TKA (93.7 minutes (. sd. 16.7) vs 82.1 minutes (. sd. 16.6); p = 0.001). Using a conservative published standard of $36 per minute for operating theatre time cost, the total time cost was $418 higher for cementing TKA. The cost of cement and accessories ranged from $170 to $625. Overall, the calculated cost of cemented TKA is $588 to $1043, depending on technique. The general increased charge for cementless TKA implants over cemented TKA implants was $366. Conclusion. The overall procedural cost of implanting a cementless TKA is less than implanting a cemented TKA. Cost alone should not be a barrier to using cementless TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):61–63

Introduction. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers significant advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but is reported to have higher revision rates in joint registries. In both the New Zealand and the UK national registry the revision rate of cementless UKR is less than cementless. It is not clear whether this is because the cementless is better or because more experienced surgeons, who tend to get better results are using cementless. We aim to use registry data to compare cemented and cementless UKA outcomes, matching for surgical experience and other factors. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 10,836 propensity matched Oxford UKAs (5418 cemented and 5418 cementless) between 2004 and 2015. Logistic regression was utilized to calculate propensity scores to match the cemented and cementless groups for multiple confounders using a one to one ratio. Standardised mean differences were used before and after matching to assess for any covariate imbalances. The outcomes studied were implant survival, reasons for revision and patient survival. The endpoint for implant survival was revision surgery (any component removal or exchange). Cumulative patient and implant survival rates were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients not undergoing revision or death were censored on the study end date. The study endpoints implant and patient survival were compared between cemented and cementless groups using Cox regression models with a robust variance estimator. Results. The 5-year implant survival for cemented and cementless Oxford UKA were 95.4% (95%CI 94.6–96.1%) and 96.5% (95%CI 95.8–97.1%) respectively. Implant revision rates were significantly lower in cementless Oxford UKA than cemented, HR 0.8 (CI 0.64–0.99); (p=0.04). The most common reasons for revision in the cemented Oxford UKA group were aseptic loosening (n=44, 0.8%), pain (n=37, 0.7%) and osteoarthritis progression (n=37, 0.7%) compared with osteoarthritis progression (n=28, 0.5%), pain (n=24, 0.4%), aseptic loosening (n=23,0.4%) in the cementless group. Patient survival 5-year survival rates for cemented and cementless Oxford UKA were 96.1% (95%CI 95.2–96.9) and 96.3% (95%CI 95.4–97.1) respectively and were not significantly different HR 0.91 (95%CI 0.71–1.15); (p = 0.42). Conclusion. This is the first study comparing the outcomes of the cemented and cementless UKA from the largest arthroplasty register in the world. Our work shows the cementless Oxford UKA has superior implant survivorship to the cemented implant at 5 years follow up. Cementless implants also had half the risk of requiring revision for aseptic loosening, which may be related to the decreased incidence of tibial radiolucent lines with cementless fixation. Patient survival did not significantly differ between the implant types

Aims

One of the main causes of tibial revision surgery for total knee arthroplasty is aseptic loosening. Therefore, stable fixation between the tibial component and the cement, and between the tibial component and the bone, is essential. A factor that could influence the implant stability is the implant design, with its different variations. In an existing implant system, the tibial component was modified by adding cement pockets. The aim of this experimental in vitro study was to investigate whether additional cement pockets on the underside of the tibial component could improve implant stability. The relative motion between implant and bone, the maximum pull-out force, the tibial cement mantle, and a possible path from the bone marrow to the metal-cement interface were determined.

Laboratory experiments and computational models were used to predict bone-implant micromotion and bone strains induced by the cemented and cementless Biomet Oxford medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) tibial implants. Methods. Ten fresh frozen cadaveric knees were implanted with cementless medial mobile UKRs, the tibias were separated and all the soft tissues were resected. Five strain gauge rosettes were attached to each tibia. Four Linear Transducers were used to measure the superior-inferior and transverse bone-implant micromotions. The cementless UKRs were assessed with 10 cycles of 1kN compressive load at 4 different bearing positions. The bone-constructs were re-assessed following cementation of the equivalent UKR. The cemented bone-implant constructs were also assessed for strain and micromotion under 10000 cycles of 10mm anterior-posterior bearing movement at 2Hz and 1kN load. The cadaveric specimens were scanned using Computed Tomography, and 3D computer models were developed using Finite Element method to predict strain and micromotion under various daily loads. Results and Discussion. Results verify computer model predictions and show bone strain pattern differences, with cemented implants distributing the loads more evenly through the bone than cementless implants. Although cementless implants showed micromotions which were greater than computer predictions, the micromotions were as expected significantly greater than those of cemented implants. The computer models reveal that bone strains approach 70% of their failure limit at the posterior and anterior corners adjoining the sagittal and transverse cuts (less pronounced in cemented implants). The base of the keel also develops high strains which can approach failure depending on the amount the implant press-fit. The contributions of the anterior cruciate and patellar tendon forces exacerbate the strains in these regions. This may explain why fractures emanate from the base of the keel and the sagittal cut

In a single-blind, randomised series of knee replacements in 116 patients, we used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure micromotion in three types of tibial implant fixation for two years after knee replacement. We compared hydroxyapatite-augmented porous coating, porous coating, and cemented fixation of the same design of tibial component. At one to two years, porous-coated implants migrated at a statistically significantly higher rate than hydroxyapatite-augmented or cemented implants. There was no significant difference between hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented implants. We conclude that hydroxyapatite augmentation may offer a clinically relevant advantage over a simple porous coating for tibial component fixation, but is no better than cemented fixation

Introduction. Cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the gold standard with survivorship above 90% at greater than 10 years postoperatively. However, with younger, heavier, more active patients undergoing TKA at an increasing rate, cementless implants have the appeal of potential for improved implant fixation longevity and decreased rates of aseptic loosening. The cementless implants are more expensive than their cemented counterparts such that implant costs may create a barrier to utilization. However, such comparisons fail to consider the unavoidable additional costs of cementing, including the cost of operating room time, cement and cementing accessories. The purpose of this study is to compare the actual cost of cemented and cementless TKA. Methods. The TKA cost calculation included the cost of operative time, implants, cement and cementing accessories. The difference in operative time between cemented and cementless TKA was determined from a previously published study of 100 TKAs performed using a cemented (55) or press fit (45) implant of the same design performed at a single institution by four fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons. The decision to use cemented or cementless design in these patients was made based on patient bone quality intraoperatively. Operative time was compared between groups using a Student's two-tailed T-test. The cost of operating room time was based on estimates in the recent literature. The cost of cement and cementing accessories was estimated based on publically available market data. The cost of implants was estimated from institutional data for multiple companies. Results. The cost comparison between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty is summarized in Table 1. Mean operative time for cemented TKA was 14.3 minutes longer than for cementless TKA (94.7 + 15.2 vs. 80.4 + 15.7, p<0.01). The estimated cost of one minute of operating room time in the literature ranges from $30 to $60. For our analysis, we used an estimate of $36 per minute obtained from a recently published multi-center study. This resulted in an average operating room time cost $3406 for cemented and $2894 for cementless TKA. Antibiotic cement costs an average of $250 per bag and antibiotic-free cement costs an average of $75 per bag. Cement mixing techniques vary across surgeons. Approximately 95% use a vacuum system and 5% use a mixing bowl. The cost of vacuum systems ranges from $80 for an enclosed bowl to $125 for a vacuum system that can be directly connected to a cement gun. The cost of a plastic mixing bowl and spatula is $20. The cost of the disposables from a cement injection kit is $25. The average cost of a primary TKA implant, including femoral, tibial and polyethylene liner components, is $3530 for cemented and $4659 for cementless designs. Patellar resurfacing is not routinely used at our institution and therefore was not included in implant cost. Based on our calculations, the average cost of a cementless TKA is $7553. Using the cheapest cementing technique with 2 bags of plain cement and a manual mixing bowl with spatula, the cost of a cemented TKA $7114. Using the most expensive cementing technique with 2 bags of antibiotic cement and a cement gun compatible vacuum mixer, the cost of a cemented TKA is $7564. Conclusion. Cemented TKA remains the gold standard and still accounts for most procedures. Cementless TKA is increasing in utilization and may decrease the rate of aseptic loosening, especially in the rapidly growing young, active population undergoing TKA. Although cementless implants remain more expensive than cemented implants at most institutions, the actual overall cost of the two procedures is similar if operative time, cement and cementing accessories are considered. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Introduction. Cementless total knees were historically associated with early failure. These failures, likely associated with implant design, made cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) the “gold standard”. Manufacturers have introduced newer uncemented technologies that provide good initial stability and utilize a highly-porous substrates for bony in-growth. Outcome data on these implants has been limited. In addition, these implants typically have a price premium which makes them difficult to use in the setting of cost containment and in at risk 90-day bundles. Our purpose was to compare 90-day outcomes of a new uncemented implant with those of a comparable cemented implant from the same manufacturer. We hypothesized that the implants would have equivalent 90-day clinical and economic outcomes. Methods. Ninety-day clinical and economic outcomes for 252 patients with prospectively collected data from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) database were reviewed. Ninety-day outcomes were compared between uncemented knees and an age-matched group of cemented knees (Triathlon cemented vs uncemented Triathalon-tritanium, Stryker Orthopedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA). Both cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized designs were included. MARCQI data: demographics, co-morbidities, length of stay, complications, emergency department visits, discharge disposition, and readmissions were reviewed. Financial data provided by the hospital's finance department was used for economic comparisons. Fischer's test was done to assess categorical data and a student's t-test was used to compare numerical data. Results. Uncemented knees had shorter length of stay (1.58 vs. 1.87, p<0.0001), were more frequently discharged home (90.48% vs. 68.75%; p<0.0001) and used less home care or extended care facilities (6.35% vs. 19.14%, p<0.0001; 2.78% vs. 11.72%, p=0.0001). More uncemented knees had “no complications”. Moreover, there were no reoperations in uncemented knees, compared to 19 reoperations in cemented knees most being manipulations (14 vs. 0, p=0.0028). Uncemented knees scored better than age matched counterparts Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (63.69 vs. 47.10, n=85 and 43, p<0.0001), and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System T-physical and T-mental (44.12 vs. 39.45, n=95 and 59, p<0.0001; 51.84 vs 47.82, n=97 and 59, p=0.0018). Cemented cases were more expensive overall, the surgical costs were higher ($6806.43 vs. $5710.78 p<0.01) and the total hospital costs were higher ($8347.65 vs. $7016.11 p<0.01). The 90-day readmission and hospital outpatient costs were not significantly different between the designs. Conclusion. The use of a modern uncemented TKA implants has increased, but data on outcomes and the economic impact has been limited particularly in regard to 90-day at risk global periods. Our study suggests that patients receiving an new uncemented TKA have a shorter length of stay, higher rate of discharge to home, better patient reported outcome measures, fewer complications and fewer reoperations than an age-matched group of patients receiving a similar, cemented design during the 90-day global period. Importantly, the uncemented knees had $1,095 less surgical episode costs (p< 0.001) and a 90-day cost savings of over $1,300 (p< 0.001). Uncemented TKA, when utilizing modern technologies, is successful and economically viable for an at-risk bundle. The results of this study should alleviate fears increased cost, early failure, complications or poor outcomes with the use of a modern uncemented TKA

Aims

Unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA) are successful treatments for osteoarthritis, but the solid metal implants disrupt the natural distribution of stress and strain which can lead to bone loss over time. This generates problems if the implant needs to be revised. This study investigates whether titanium lattice UKA and TKA implants can maintain natural load transfer in the proximal tibia.