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.

Aims. This aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of designing and introducing generic 3D-printed instrumentation for routine use in total knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. Instruments were designed to take advantage of 3D-printing technology, particularly ensuring that all parts were pre-assembled, to theoretically reduce the time and skill required during surgery. Concerning functionality, ranges of resection angle and distance were restricted within a safe zone, while accommodating either mechanical or anatomical alignment goals. To identify the most suitable biocompatible materials, typical instrument shapes and mating parts, such as dovetails and screws, were designed and produced. Results. Before and after steam sterilization, dimensional analysis showed that acrylonitrile butadiene styrene could not withstand the temperatures without dimensional changes. Oscillating saw tests with slotted cutting blocks produced debris, fractures, or further dimensional changes in the shape of Nylon-12 and polymethylmethacrylate (MED610), but polyetherimide ULTEM 1010 was least affected. Conclusion. The study showed that 3D-printed instrumentation was technically feasible and had some advantages. However, other factors, such as whether all procedural steps can be accomplished with a set of 3D-printed instruments, the logistics of delivery, and the economic aspects, require further study. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):115–120