Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Systematic Review

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hybrid vs. cemented stems – which method is more optimal for revision total knee arthroplasty?

Authors: Yogen Thever, Sir Young James Loh, Raghuraman Raghavan, Rong Chuin Toh, Ing How Moo

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Introduction

The number of primary and revision Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) cases are expected to increase in future. There are various advantages and disadvantage to employing either of the two main types of stem fixation methods – cemented or hybrid technique. This review aimed to study the most optimal fixation method for revision TKAs by comparing radiological outcomes and re-revision rates.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using PubMed and Cochrane Library from 2010 to identify studies explicitly comparing outcomes between cemented against hybrid fixation revision TKA techniques, with a minimum follow up of at least 24 months. A total of 8 studies was included in this review. Egger’s test and visual inspection of the funnel plot did not reveal publication bias.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in radiological failure and loosening (OR 0.79, CI 0.37–1.66, I² = 29%, p = 0.22), all causes of re-revision (OR 1.03, CI 0.73–1.44, I² = 0%, p = 0.56) and aseptic revision (OR 0.74, CI 0.27–2.02, I² = 0%, p = 0.41) between cemented and hybrid techniques. Functional and pain outcomes compared between the two fixation techniques were largely similar across the studies included in this meta-analysis.

Conclusion

Despite a trend favouring hybrid stems in revision TKA, current evidence revealed that radiological outcomes and re-revision rates are largely similar between cemented and hybrid fixation techniques.

Klug A, Gramlich Y, Rudert M, Drees P, Hoffmann R, Weißenberger M, et al. The projected volume of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty will place an immense burden on future health care systems over the next 30 years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29:3287–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06154-7.CrossRefPubMed

Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: National projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop. 2009;467:2606–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg. 2007;89:780–5. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222.CrossRef

Leta TH, Lygre SHL, Skredderstuen A, Hallan G, Furnes O. Failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties: 145 revision failures from the Norwegian arthroplasty Register, 1994–2011. Acta Orthop. 2015;86:48–57. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.964097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Cherian JJ, Bhave A, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Outcomes and aseptic survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop Belle Mead NJ. 2016;45:79–85.PubMed

Fehring TK, Odum S, Olekson C, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy TH. Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis. Clin Orthop. 2003;416:217–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000093032.56370.4b.CrossRef

Bourne RB, Finlay JB. The influence of tibial component intramedullary stems and implant-cortex contact on the strain distribution of the proximal tibia following total knee arthroplasty. An in vitro study. Clin Orthop 1986:95–9.

Brooks PJ, Walker PS, Scott RD. Tibial component fixation in deficient tibial bone stock. Clin Orthop 1984:302–8.

Reilly D, Walker PS, Ben-Dov M, Ewald FC. Effects of tibial components on load transfer in the upper tibia. Clin Orthop 1982:273–82.

10.

Mabry TM, Vessely MB, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular cemented stems. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:100–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.025.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Murray PB, Rand JA, Hanssen AD. Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1994:116–23.

12.

Peters CL, Erickson J, Kloepper RG, Mohr RA. Revision total knee arthroplasty with Modular Components Inserted with Metaphyseal Cement and stems without cement. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:302–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.08.010.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Peters CL, Erickson JA, Gililland JM. Clinical and radiographic results of 184 consecutive revision total knee arthroplasties placed with modular Cementless stems. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.033.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Shannon BD, Klassen JF, Rand JA, Berry DJ, Trousdale RT. Revision total knee arthroplasty with cemented components and uncemented intramedullary stems. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00301-2.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Wood GC, Naudie DDR, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB. Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop. 2009;467:810–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0621-9.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Edwards PK, Fehring TK, Hamilton WG, Perricelli B, Beaver WB, Odum SM. Are Cementless stems more durable than cemented stems in two-stage revisions of infected total knee arthroplasties? Clin Orthop. 2014;472:206–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3139-8.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wang C, Pfitzner T, von Roth P, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R. Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless—a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:3200–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3820-4.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Sheridan GA, Garbuz DS, Masri BA. Hybrid stems are superior to cemented stems in revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent comparative studies. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2021;31:131–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-020-02752-w.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Gómez-Vallejo J, Albareda-Albareda J, Seral-García B, Blanco-Rubio N, Ezquerra-Herrando L. Revision total knee arthroplasty: hybrid vs standard cemented fixation. J Orthop Traumatol off J Ital Soc Orthop Traumatol. 2018;19:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-018-0494-y.CrossRef

20.

Gililland JM, Gaffney CJ, Odum SM, Fehring TK, Peters CL, Beaver WB. Clinical & radiographic outcomes of cemented vs. diaphyseal engaging cementless stems in aseptic revision TKA. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:224–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.049.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Jacquet C, Ros F, Guy S, Parratte S, Ollivier M, Argenson J-N. Trabecular metal cones combined with short cemented stem allow favorable outcomes in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:657–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.08.058.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Lachiewicz PF, O’Dell JA. Is there a difference between cemented and uncemented femoral stem extensions in revision knee arthroplasty? J Knee Surg. 2020;33:84–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1676567.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Fleischman AN, Azboy I, Fuery M, Restrepo C, Shao H, Parvizi J. Effect of stem size and fixation method on mechanical failure after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:S202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.055. -S208.e1.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mills K, Wymenga AB, van Hellemondt GG, Heesterbeek PJC. No difference in long-term micromotion between fully cemented and hybrid fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Bone Jt J. 2022;104–B:875–83. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.104B7.BJJ-2021-1600.R1.CrossRef

25.

Kemker BP, Sowers CB, Seedat R, Satpathy J, Patel NK, Lombardo DJ, et al. Comparing revision total knee arthroplasty stems at a high-volume Revision Center. Front Surg. 2022;9:716510. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.716510.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Stern SH, Wills RD, Gilbert JL. The effect of tibial stem design on component micromotion in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1997:44–52.

27.

Albrektsson B, Ryd L, Carlsson L, Freeman M, Herberts P, Regner L, et al. The effect of a stem on the tibial component of knee arthroplasty. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric study of uncemented tibial components in the Freeman-Samuelson knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72–B:252–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.72B2.2312565.CrossRef

28.

van Loon CJM, Kyriazopoulos A, Verdonschot N, de Waal Malefijt MC, Huiskes R, Buma P. The role of femoral stem extension in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2000;378:282–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200009000-00039.CrossRef

29.

Jazrawi LM, Bai B, Kummer FJ, Hiebert R, Stuchin SA. The effect of stem modularity and mode of fixation on tibial component stability in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:759–67. https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2001.25507.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Barrack RL, Rorabeck C, Burt M, Sawhney J. Pain at the end of the stem after revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1999:216–25.

31.

Beckmann J, Lüring C, Springorum R, Köck FX, Grifka J, Tingart M. Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:872–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1249-3.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Greene JW, Reynolds SM, Stimac JD, Malkani AL, Massini MA. Midterm results of hybrid cement technique in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:570–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.08.010.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kosse NM, van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB, Heesterbeek PJC. Comparable Stability of cemented vs Press-Fit placed stems in revision total knee arthroplasty with mild to moderate bone loss: 6.5-Year results from a Randomized Controlled Trial with Radiostereometric Analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:197–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.003.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Heesterbeek PJC, Wymenga AB, van Hellemondt GG. No difference in Implant Micromotion between hybrid fixation and fully cemented revision total knee arthroplasty: a Randomized Controlled Trial with Radiostereometric Analysis of Patients with mild-to-moderate bone loss. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98:1359–69. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00909.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SIS, Graichen H, Haddad FS. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J. 2015;97–B:147–9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144.CrossRef

36.

Sculco PK, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. The management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: rebuild, reinforce, and augment. Bone Jt J. 2016;98–B:120–4. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36345.CrossRef

37.

Sheth NP, Bonadio MB, Demange MK. Bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25:348–57. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-15-00660.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Panegrossi G, Ceretti M, Papalia M, Casella F, Favetti F, Falez F. Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery. Int Orthop. 2014;38:419–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2262-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Bedard NA, Cates RA, Lewallen DG, Sierra RJ, Hanssen AD, Berry DJ, et al. Outcomes of a technique combining diaphyseal impaction grafting and metaphyseal cones for severe bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J. 2020;102–B:116–22. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B6.BJJ-2019-1511.R1.CrossRef

Title: A systematic review and meta-analysis of hybrid vs. cemented stems – which method is more optimal for revision total knee arthroplasty?
Authors: Yogen Thever
Sir Young James Loh
Raghuraman Raghavan
Rong Chuin Toh
Ing How Moo
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07389-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

A systematic review and meta-analysis of hybrid vs. cemented stems – which method is more optimal for revision total knee arthroplasty?

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Cost-consequence analysis of continuous denosumab therapy for osteoporosis treatment in South Korea

Instrumentation failure following pediatric spine deformity growth-sparing surgery using traditional growing rods or vertical expandable prosthetic titanium ribs

How well do participants in clinical trials represent the U.S. population with chronic neck or back pain?

Factors associated with pain and functional impairment five years after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective observational study

Prevalence and associated factors of locomotive syndrome in young Japanese adults: a cross-sectional study

Eligibility for knee arthroplasty is associated with increased risk of acquired hallux valgus - a Mendelian randomized study