Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. The AP group had a mean KSS-Knee of 83.4 (standard deviation (SD) 19.2) and the MB group a mean of 84.9 (SD 18.2; p = 0.631), while mean KSS-Function was 75.4 (SD 15.3) and 73.2 (SD 16.2 p = 0.472), respectively. The mental (44.3 vs 45.1; p = 0.464) and physical (44.8 vs 44.9; p = 0.893) dimensions of the SF-12 and ROM (97.9° vs 99.7°; p = 0.444) were not different between the groups. Implant survivorship at five years were 99.2% and 97.7% (p = 0.321). The AP group had a greater SF-6D gain of 0.145 compared to the MB group, with an associated cost saving of £406, which resulted in a negative ICER of -£406/0.145 = -£2,800. Therefore, the AP tibial component was dominant, being a more effective and less expensive intervention. Conclusion. There were no differences in functional outcomes or survivorship at five years between AP and MB tibial components in patients aged 70 years and older, however the AP component was shown to be more cost-effective. In the UK, only 1.4% of all total knee arthroplasties use an AP component; even a modest increase in usage nationally could lead to significant financial savings. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):969–976

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.