Joint registries suggest a downward trend in the use of uncemented Total Knee Replacements (TKR) since 2003, largely related to reports of early failures of uncemented tibial and patella components. Advancements in uncemented design such as trabecular metal may improve outcomes, but there is a scarcity of high-quality data from randomised trials.

319 patients <75 years of age were randomised to either cemented or uncemented TKR implanted using computer navigation. Patellae were resurfaced in all patients. Patient outcome scores, re-operations and radiographic analysis of radiolucent lines were compared.

Two year follow up was available for 287 patients (144 cemented vs 143 uncemented). There was no difference in operative time between groups, 73.7 v 71.1 mins (p= 0.08). There were no statistical differences in outcome scores at 2 years, Oxford knee score 42.5 vs 41.8 (p=0.35), International Knee Society 84.6 vs 84.0 (p=0.76), Forgotten Joint Score 66.7 vs 66.4 (p=0.91). There were two revisions, both for infection one in each group (0.33%). 13 cemented and 8 uncemented knees underwent re-operation, the majority of these being manipulation under anaesthetic (85.7%), with no difference (8.3% vs 5.3%, 95% CI -2.81% to 8.89%, p = 0.31). No difference was found in radiographic analysis at 2 years, 1 lucent line was seen in the cemented group and 3 in the uncemented group (0.67% v 2.09%, 95%CI -4.1% to 1.24%, p = 0.29).

We found no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes between cemented and uncemented TKR including routine patella resurfacing at two years.

Early results suggest there is no difference between cemented and uncemented TKR at 2 years with reference to survivorship, patient outcomes and radiological parameters.

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has benefits for patients with appropriate indications. However, UKA has a higher risk of revision, particularly for low-usage surgeons. The introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems may allow for improved outcomes but is also associated with a learning curve. We aimed to characterise the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system (MAKO) for UKA in terms of operative time, limb alignment, component sizing, and patient outcomes.

Operative times, pre- and post-surgical limb alignments, and component sizing were prospectively recorded for consecutive cases of primary medial UKA between 2017 and 2021 (n=152, 5 surgeons). Patient outcomes were captured with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) and re-operation events up to two years post-UKA. A Cumulative Summation (CUSUM) method was used to estimate learning curves and to distinguish between learning and proficiency phases.

Introduction of the system had a learning curve of 11 cases. There was increased operative time of 13 minutes between learning and proficiency phases (learning 98 mins vs. proficiency 85 mins; p<0.001), associated with navigation registration and bone preparation/cutting. A learning curve was also found with polyethylene insert sizing (p=0.03). No difference in patient outcomes between the two phases were detected for patient-reported outcome measures, implant survival (both phases 98%; NS) or re-operation (learning 100% vs. proficiency: 96%; NS). Implant survival and re-operation rates did not differ between low and high usage surgeons (cut-off of 12 UKAs per year).

Introduction of the robotic-arm assisted system for UKA led to increased operative times for navigation registration and bone preparation, but no differences were detected in terms of component placement or patient outcomes regardless of usage. The short learning curve regardless of UKA usage indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons.