Survival and clinical function of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total knee replacement: a meta-analysis.
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.
Gandhi
R
R
Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst St, East Wing 1-435, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Rajiv.Gandhi@uhn.on.ca
Tsvetkov
D
D
Davey
J R
JR
Mahomed
N N
NN
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / Q000379:methods*; D002484:Cementation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007719:Knee Joint / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000601:surgery; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016017:Odds Ratio; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D016896:Treatment Outcome