Different methods of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction
have been described for skeletally immature patients before closure
of the growth plates. However, the outcome and complications following
this treatment remain unclear. The aim of this systematic review
was to analyse the outcome and complications of different techniques
which may be used for reconstruction of the ACL in these patients. We performed a systematic review of the literature according
to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
guidelines. This involved a comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline,
CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Google Scholar databases using the
following combinations of keywords, “knee”, “anterior cruciate ligament”,
“reconstruction”, “injury”, “children”, “adolescent”, “skeletally
immature”, “open physis” and “surgery”.Aims
Materials and Methods
The optimum cementing technique for the tibial
component in cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) remains
controversial. The technique of cementing, the volume of cement
and the penetration are largely dependent on the operator, and hence
large variations can occur. Clinical, experimental and computational
studies have been performed, with conflicting results. Early implant
migration is an indication of loosening. Aseptic loosening is the
most common cause of failure in primary TKR and is the product of
several factors. Sufficient penetration of cement has been shown
to increase implant stability. This review discusses the relevant literature regarding all aspects
of the cementing of the tibial component at primary TKR. Cite this article:
Using meta-analysis we compared the survival and clinical outcomes of cemented and uncemented techniques in primary total knee replacement. We reviewed randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing cemented and uncemented fixation. Our primary outcome was survival of the implant free of aseptic loosening. Our secondary outcome was joint function as measured by the Knee Society score. We identified 15 studies that met our final eligibility criteria. The combined odds ratio for failure of the implant due to aseptic loosening for the uncemented group was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 6.5) (p <
0.0001). Subgroup analysis of data only from randomised controlled trials showed no differences between the groups for odds of aseptic loosening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.55 to 6.40, p = 0.314). The weighted mean difference for the Knee Society score was 0.005 (95% CI −0.26 to 0.26) (p = 0.972). There was improved survival of the cemented compared to uncemented implants, with no statistically significant difference in the mean Knee Society score between groups for all pooled data.
