Similar polyethylene wear between cemented and cementless Oxford medial UKA: a 5-year follow-up randomized controlled trial on 79 patients using radiostereometry.
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
/ adverse effects
Bone Cements
/ therapeutic use
Cementation
/ methods
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
/ therapeutic use
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Knee Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Male
Middle Aged
Osteoarthritis, Knee
/ surgery
Polyethylene
/ therapeutic use
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Radiostereometric Analysis
Treatment Outcome
Journal
Acta orthopaedica
ISSN: 1745-3682
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101231512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
12
12
2018
medline:
31
10
2019
entrez:
12
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background and purpose - Hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants have been associated with high polyethylene wear in hip arthroplasties. HA coating as a promoter of wear in knee arthroplasties has not been investigated. We compared the wear-rate of the polyethylene bearing for cemented and cementless HA-coated Oxford medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties (UKA). Secondarily, we investigated whether wear-rates were influenced by overhang or impingement of the bearing. Patients and methods - 80 patients (mean age 64 years), treatment-blinded, were randomized to 1 of 3 Oxford medial UKA versions: cemented with double-pegged or single-pegged femoral component or cementless HA-coated with double-pegged femoral component (ratios 1:1:1). We compared wear between the cemented (n = 55) and cementless group (n = 25) (ratio 2:1). Wear, impingement, and overhang were quantified between surgery and 5-year follow-up using radiostereometry. Clinical outcome was evaluated with the Oxford Knee Score. Results - The mean wear-rate for patients without bearing overhang was 0.04 mm/year (95% CI 0.02-0.07) for the cemented group and 0.05 mm/year (CI 0.02-0.08) for the cementless group. The mean difference in wear was 0.008 mm/year (CI -0.04 to 0.03). No impingement was identified. Half of the patients had medial bearing overhang, mean 2.5 mm (1-5). Wear increased by 0.014 mm/year for each mm increment in overhang. The mean Oxford Knee Score was 39 for the cementless group and 38 for the cemented group at the 5-year follow-up. Interpretation - The wear-rates were similar for the 2 fixation methods, which supports further use of the cementless Oxford medial UKA. However, a caveat is a relatively large 95% CI of the mean difference in wear-rate. Component size and position is important as half of the patients presented with an additional increase in wear-rate due to medial bearing overhang.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30526183
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1543757
pmc: PMC6366473
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Cements
0
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
0
Polyethylene
9002-88-4
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
67-73Références
J Biomech. 2003 Jun;36(6):873-82
pubmed: 12742455
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 May;446:233-8
pubmed: 16721953
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1996;210(3):217-22
pubmed: 8885659
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007 Jan;15(1):53-64
pubmed: 17213382
Acta Orthop. 2006 Aug;77(4):575-84
pubmed: 16929433
Knee. 2004 Jun;11(3):177-81
pubmed: 15194092
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2006 Sep;88(9):1158-63
pubmed: 16943464
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Nov;80(6):976-82
pubmed: 9853488
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999 Jul;81(4):582-9
pubmed: 10463725
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992 Mar;74(2):228-32
pubmed: 1544958
Bone Joint J. 2015 Feb;97-B(2):185-91
pubmed: 25628280
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 May;90(5):556-61
pubmed: 18450618
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Nov;467(11):2872-9
pubmed: 19330391
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 May;(338):109-18
pubmed: 9170371
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Mar;92(3):367-73
pubmed: 20190307
Bone Joint J. 2013 Feb;95-B(2):181-7
pubmed: 23365026
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Mar;80(2):267-72
pubmed: 9546458
J Biomech. 2011 Oct 13;44(15):2724-7
pubmed: 21907991
Biol Res Nurs. 2004 Oct;6(2):151-7
pubmed: 15388912
Acta Orthop. 2005 Jun;76(3):375-85
pubmed: 16156466
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1997;116(6-7):334-7
pubmed: 9266035
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Sep;27(8):1452-9
pubmed: 22503333
J Orthop Res. 2018 Jan;36(1):357-364
pubmed: 28574622
Acta Orthop Scand. 1998 Jun;69(3):253-8
pubmed: 9703398
Acta Orthop. 2017 Jun;88(3):275-281
pubmed: 28067099
Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1998 Feb;278:1-16
pubmed: 9524528
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009 Feb;91(2):185-9
pubmed: 19190051
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Nov;(404):7-13
pubmed: 12439231
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec;(393):66-70
pubmed: 11764372
Bone Joint Res. 2014 Oct;3(10):289-96
pubmed: 25278502
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan;(298):19-26
pubmed: 8118974
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Nov;87(11):1493-7
pubmed: 16260665
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Apr;93(4):470-5
pubmed: 21464484
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004 Jan;86(1):34-8
pubmed: 14765862
Evid Based Spine Care J. 2011 Feb;2(1):7-10
pubmed: 22956930
J Arthroplasty. 1999 Jun;14(4):488-92
pubmed: 10428231
Hip Int. 2012 Jan-Feb;22(1):35-40
pubmed: 22383319