4.3 Review

Outcomes of cementless unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review

期刊

KNEE
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 497-507

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.10.010

关键词

Cementless; Uncemented; UKA; TKA; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Total knee arthroplasty

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aseptic loosening is a common failure mode in cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This led to the development of cementless designs but the historical outcomes were poor. Recent developments in cementless designs have improved outcomes, but the current status is unknown. Therefore, a systematic review was performed to assess recent outcomes of cementless knee arthroplasty. Methods: A search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Cochrane systems and national registries for studies reporting outcomes since 2005. Fifty-two cohort studies and four registries reported survivorship, failure modes or functional outcomes of cementless UKA and TKA. Results: Nine level I studies, six level II studies, three level III studies, 34 level IV studies and four registries were included. Three hundred eighteen failures in 10,309 cementless TKA procedures and 62 failures in 2218 cementless UKA procedures resulted in extrapolated five-year, 10-year and 15-year survivorship of cementless TKAs of 97.7%, 95.4% and 93.0%, respectively, and cementless UKA of 96.4%, 92.9% and 89.3%, respectively. Aseptic loosening was more common in cementless TKA (25%) when compared to UKA (13%). Functional outcomes of cementless TKA and UKA were excellent with 84.3% and 84.5% of the maximum possible scores, respectively. Conclusions: This systematic review showed that good to excellent extrapolated survivorship and functional outcomes are seen following modem cementless UKA and TKA, with a low incidence of aseptic loosening following cementless UKA. Level of evidence: Level IV. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据