Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 11/2017

01-11-2017 | Knee

All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty

Authors: Umile Giuseppe Longo, Mauro Ciuffreda, Valerio D’Andrea, Nicholas Mannering, Joel Locher, Vincenzo Denaro

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 11/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical outcomes, rate of revisions and complications of all-polyethylene tibial and metal-backed tibial components in patients treated with knee arthroplasty for primary or secondary osteoarthritis.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases using various combinations of the keywords such as “knee”, “arthroplasty”, “metal-backed”, and “all-polyethylene”, since inception of databases to 2016, was performed.

Results

Thirty-two articles, describing patients with all-polyethylene tibial or metal-backed tibial components in the setting of osteoarthritis, were included. A total of 68,202 knees in 58,942 patients were included, with an average age at surgery of 69.3 years, ranging from a mean age of 57.9–82 years. The mean KSS was 82.4 and 81.3 (n.s.), the mean KSS(F) was 73.6 and 74.9 (p = 0.04), the mean ROM was 104.5 and 104.6 (n.s.), and the mean HSS was 87 and 86, each, respectively, for the metal-backed tibial components group and all-polyethylene tibial components group. The overall rate of revisions was 1.90 %. The rate of revision in the metal-backed tibial components group was 1.85 %, whilst the rate of revision in the all-polyethylene tibial components group was 2.02 % (p < 0.00001).

Conclusion

Metal-backed tibial and all-polyethylene tibial components did not show any significant difference in most of the included outcome scores, but statistical differences were found in terms of complications and revision rate. These items have a negative impact on the cost-effectiveness of all-polyethylene tibial components. Even if all-polyethylene tibial components show similar clinical outcome score, equivalent range of knee motion, and long-term survival compared to metal-backed tibial components, complications and revision rate seem to lead the surgeon to prefer the last ones. The clinical relevance of this study is that metal-backed tibial components should be preferred in TKA surgery because complications are higher using all-polyethylene tibial components. On the other hand, the quality of evidence, according to GRADE system, is low underling the necessity of more randomised study to clarify these items.

Level of evidence

III.
Literature
1.
Adalberth G, Nilsson KG, Byström S, Kolstad K, Milbrink J (2000) Low-conforming all-polyethylene tibial component not inferior to metal-backed component in cemented total knee arthroplasty: prospective, randomized radiostereometric analysis study of the AGC total knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 15(6):783–792CrossRefPubMed
2.
Adalberth GA, Nilsson KGA, Bystrom SA, Kolstad KA, Milbrink JA (2001) All-polyethylene versus metal-backed and stemmed tibial components in cemented total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomised RSA study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83(6):825–831CrossRefPubMed
3.
Apel DM, Tozzi JM, Dorr LD (1991) Clinical comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 273:243–252
4.
Bettinson KA, Pinder IM, Moran CG, Weir DJ, Lingard EA (2009) All-polyethylene compared with metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty at 10 years: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91-A(7):1587–1594CrossRef
5.
Cheng T, Pan X, Liu T, Zhang X (2012) Tibial component designs in primary total knee arthroplasty: should we reconsider all-polyethylene component? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(8):1438–1449CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dojcinovic S, Ait Si Selmi T, Servien E, Verdonk PCM, Neyret P (2007) A comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 93(4):364–372CrossRefPubMed
7.
Doran J, Yu S, Smith D, Iorio R (2015) The role of all-polyethylene tibial components in modern TKA. J Knee Surg 28(5):382–389CrossRefPubMed
8.
Enea D, Cigna V, Sgolacchia C, Tozzi L, Verdenelli A, Gigante A (2015) Retained versus resected posterior cruciate ligament in mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a retrospective, clinical and functional assessment. Musculoskelet Surg 99(2):149–154CrossRefPubMed
9.
Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN (1997) Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 345:79–86CrossRef
10.
Gioe TJ, Bowman KR (2000) A randomized comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:108–115CrossRef
11.
Gioe TJ, Sinner PF, Mehle SF, Ma WF, Killeen KK (2007) Excellent survival of all-polyethylene tibial components in a community joint registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:88–92PubMed
12.
Gioe TJ, Stroemer ES, Santos ERG (2007) All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibias have similar outcomes at 10 Years: a randomized Level I Evidence Study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 455:212–218CrossRefPubMed
13.
Gladnick BP, Nam D, Khamaisy S, Paul S, Pearle AD (2015) Onlay tibial implants appear to provide superior clinical results in robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. HSS J 11(1):43–49CrossRefPubMed
14.
Gudnason AA, Hailer NPA, W-Dahl AA, Sundberg MA, Robertsson OA (2014) All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial components: an analysis of 27,733 cruciate-retaining total knee replacements from the swedish knee arthroplasty register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(12):994–999CrossRefPubMed
15.
Hsu H, Garg A, Walker P (1989) Effect of knee component alignment on tibial load distribution with clinical correlation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:135–144
16.
Hutt JRB, Farhadnia P, Massé V, LaVigne M, Vendittoli PA (2015) A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee. Bone Joint J 97-B(6):786–792CrossRefPubMed
17.
Hyldahl H, Regnér L, Carlsson L, Kärrholm J, Weidenhielm L (2005) All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 2. Completely cemented components: MB not superior to AP components. Acta Orthop 76(6):778–784CrossRefPubMed
18.
Hyldahl HA, Regnér LA, Carlsson LA, Kärrholm JA, Weidenhielm LA (2005) All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 1. Horizontally cemented components: AP better fixated than MB. Acta Orthop 76(6):769–777CrossRefPubMed
19.
Kalisvaart MM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Stuart MJ, Hanssen AD (2012) Randomized clinical trial of rotating-platform and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: no clinically detectable differences at 5 years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(6):481–489CrossRefPubMed
20.
Khanna A, Gougoulias N, Longo UG, Maffulli N (2009) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Orthop Clin North Am 40(4):479–489CrossRefPubMed
21.
L’Insalata JL, Stern SH, Insall JN (1992) Total knee arthroplasty in elderly patients. Comparison of tibial component designs. J Arthroplasty 7(3):261–266CrossRefPubMed
22.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62(10):1–34CrossRef
23.
Longo UG, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2009) Minimally invasive total knee arthroplasty. N Engl J Med 361(6):633–634CrossRefPubMed
24.
Ma H-M, Lu Y-C, Ho F-Y, Huang C-H (2005) Long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20(5):580–584CrossRefPubMed
25.
Mendenhall S (2011) The 2011 US knee implant price comparison. Orthop Netw News 22(3):18
26.
Mohan V, Inacio MCS, Namba RS, Sheth D, Paxton EW (2013) Monoblock all-polyethylene tibial components have a lower risk of early revision than metal-backed modular components. Acta Orthop 84(6):530–536CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Muller SD, Deehan DJ, Holland JP, Outterside SE, Kirk LMG, Gregg PJ, McCaskie AW (2006) Should we reconsider all-polyethylene tibial implants in total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br 88(12):1596–1602CrossRefPubMed
28.
Murray DW, MacLennan GS, Breeman S, Dakin HA, Johnston L, Campbell MK, Gray AM, Fiddian N, Fitzpatrick R, Morris RW, Grant AM (2014) A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different knee prostheses: the Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT). Health Technol Assess 18(19):1–235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Najibi S, Iorio R, Surdam JW, Whang W, Appleby D, Healy WL (2003) All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a matched pair analysis of functional outcome. J Arthroplasty 18(7 Suppl 1):9–15CrossRefPubMed
30.
Norgren BA, Dalen TA, Nilsson KGA (2004) All-poly tibial component better than metal-backed: a randomized RSA study. Knee 11(3):189–196CrossRefPubMed
31.
Nouta KA, Verra WC, Pijls BG, Schoones JW, Nelissen RGHH (2012) All-polyethylene tibial components are equal to metal-backed components: systematic review and meta-regression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(12):3549–3559CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
O’Rourke MR, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2002) Osteolysis associated with a cemented modular posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee design: five to eight-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84-A(8):1362–1371CrossRefPubMed
33.
Pagnano MW, Levy BA, Berry DJ, Berry DJ (1999) Cemented all polyethylene tibial components in patients age 75 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res 367:73–80
34.
Pandit H, Spiegelberg B, Clave A, McGrath C, Liddle AD, Murray DW (2016) Aetiology of lateral progression of arthritis following Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement: a case-control study. Musculoskelet Surg. doi:10.​1007/​s12306-015-0394-8 [Epub ahead of print] PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Pomeroy DL, Schaper LA, Badenhausen WE, Suthers KE, Smith MW, Empson JA, Curry JI (2000) Results of all-polyethylene tibial components as a cost-saving technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:140–143CrossRef
36.
Rand JA (1993) Comparison of metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in cruciate condylar total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 8(3):307–313CrossRefPubMed
37.
Robinson RP, Green TM (2011) Eleven-year implant survival rates of the all-polyethylene and metal-backed modular optetrak posterior stabilized knee in bilateral simultaneous cases. J Arthroplasty 26(8):1165–1169CrossRefPubMed
38.
Rodriguez J, Baez N, Rasquinha V, Ranawat C (2001) Metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:174–183CrossRef
39.
Shen B, Yang J, Zhou Z, Kang P, Wang L, Pei F (2009) Survivorship comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty—Chinese experience. Int Orthop 33(5):1243–1247CrossRefPubMed
40.
Toman J, Iorio R, Healy WL (2012) All-polyethylene and Metal-backed tibial components are equivalent with BMI of <37.5. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):108–116CrossRefPubMed
41.
Udomkiat P, Dorr LD, Long W (2001) Matched-pair analysis of all-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial components. J Arthroplasty 16(6):689–696CrossRefPubMed
42.
Voigt J, Mosier M (2011) Cemented all-polyethylene and metal-backed polyethylene tibial components used for primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving 1798 primary total knee implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(19):1790–1798CrossRefPubMed
43.
Waddell DD, Sedacki K, Yang Y, Fitch DA (2015) Early radiographic and functional outcomes of a cancellous titanium-coated tibial component for total knee arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 100(1):71–74CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
Wright T, Rimnac C, Stulber S, Mintz L, Tsao A, Klein R, McCrae C (1992) Wear of polyethylene in total joint replacements. Observations from retrieved PCA knee implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 276:126–134
45.
Yassin M, Garti A, Weissbrot M, Ashkenazi U, Khatib M, Robinson D (2015) All-polyethylene tibial components are not inferior to metal-backed tibial components in long-term follow-up of knee arthroplasties. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25(6):1087–1091CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty
Authors
Umile Giuseppe Longo
Mauro Ciuffreda
Valerio D’Andrea
Nicholas Mannering
Joel Locher
Vincenzo Denaro
Publication date
01-11-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 11/2017
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4168-0

Other articles of this Issue 11/2017

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 11/2017 Go to the issue

Knee

Remaining mild varus limb alignment leads to better clinical outcome in total knee arthroplasty for varus osteoarthritis

Knee

Greater pre-operative anxiety, pain and poorer function predict a worse outcome of a total knee arthroplasty

Knee

Physical activity after outpatient surgery and enhanced recovery for total knee arthroplasty

Knee

Association between anteroposterior laxity in mid-range flexion and subjective healing of instability after total knee arthroplasty

Knee

The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis

Knee

Coronal femoral TKA position significantly influences in vivo patellar loading in unresurfaced patellae after primary total knee arthroplasty