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. Methods. Overall, 50 subjects were randomized (21 EF-TKA and 23 Std-TKA in the final analysis), and had follow-up visits at six weeks, and six, 12, and 24 months to assess migration of the tibial component. Low viscosity bone cement with tobramycin was used in a standardized fashion for all subjects. Patient-reported outcome measure data was captured at preoperative and all postoperative visits. Results. The patient cohort mean age was 66 years (SD seven years), 59% were female, and the mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 6 kg/m. 2. ). Mean two-year subsidence of the EF-TKA was 0.056 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.025 to 0.086) versus 0.006 mm (95% CI -0.029 to 0.040) for the Std-TKA, and the two-year maximum total point motion (MTPM) was 0.285 mm (95% upper confidence limit (UCL) ≤ 0.363) versus 0.346 mm (95% UCL ≤ 0.432), respectively, for a mean difference of -0.061 mm (95% CI -0.196 to 0.074). Inducible displacement also did not differ between groups. The MTPMs between 12 and 24 months for each group was below the published threshold of 0.2 mm for predicting early aseptic loosening (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion. Both the enhanced fixation and the standard tibial implant design showed fixation with a predicted low risk of long-term aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):20–27

Aims. Medial pivot (MP) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were designed to mimic native knee kinematics with their deep medial congruent fitting of the tibia to the femur almost like a ball-on-socket, and a flat lateral part. GMK Sphere is a novel MP implant. Our primary aim was to study the migration pattern of the tibial tray of this TKA. Methods. A total of 31 patients were recruited to this single-group radiostereometric analysis (RSA) study and received a medial pivot GMK Sphere TKA. The distributions of male patients versus female patients and right versus left knees were 21:10 and 17:14, respectively. Mean BMI was 29 kg/m. 2. (95% confidence interval (CI) 27 to 30) and mean age at surgery was 63 years (95% CI 61 to 66). Maximum total point motions (MTPMs), medial, proximal, and anterior translations and transversal, internal, and varus rotations were calculated at three, 12, and 24 months. Patient-reported outcome measure data were also retrieved. Results. MTPMs at three, 12, and 24 months were 1.0 mm (95% CI 0.8 to 1.2), 1.3 mm (95% CI 0.9 to 1.7), and 1.4 mm (0.8 to 2.0), respectively. The Forgotten Joint Score was 79 (95% CI 39 to 95) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score obtained at two years was 94 (95% CI 81 to 100), 86 (95% CI 75 to 93), 94 (95% CI 88 to 100), 69 (95% CI 48 to 88), and 81 (95% CI59 to 100) for Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, Sport & Recreation, and Quality of Life, respectively. Conclusion. In conclusion, we found that the mean increase in MTPM was lower than 0.2 mm between 12 and 24 months and thus apparently stable. Yet the GMK Sphere had higher migration at one and two years than anticipated. Based on current RSA data, we therefore cannot conclude on the long-term performance of the implant, pending further assessment. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):737–744

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))?

The kinematic alignment (KA) approach to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently increased in popularity. Accordingly, a number of derivatives have arisen and have caused confusion. Clarification is therefore needed for a better understanding of KA-TKA. Calipered (or true, pure) KA is performed by cutting the bone parallel to the articular surface, compensating for cartilage wear. In soft-tissue respecting KA, the tibial cutting surface is decided parallel to the femoral cutting surface (or trial component) with in-line traction. These approaches are categorized as unrestricted KA because there is no consideration of leg alignment or component orientation. Restricted KA is an approach where the periarthritic joint surface is replicated within a safe range, due to concerns about extreme alignments that have been considered ‘alignment outliers’ in the neutral mechanical alignment approach. More recently, functional alignment and inverse kinematic alignment have been advocated, where bone cuts are made following intraoperative planning, using intraoperative measurements acquired with computer assistance to fulfill good coordination of soft-tissue balance and alignment. The KA-TKA approach aims to restore the patients’ own harmony of three knee elements (morphology, soft-tissue balance, and alignment) and eventually the patients’ own kinematics. The respective approaches start from different points corresponding to one of the elements, yet each aim for the same goal, although the existing implants and techniques have not yet perfectly fulfilled that goal.

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.