Clinical & radiographic outcomes of cemented vs. diaphyseal engaging cementless stems in aseptic revision TKA.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 24972999.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.049.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Modular revision systems have become standard in revision TKAs. However, the type of stem fixation remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the incidence of failure between cemented and diaphyseal engaging cementless stems in aseptic revision TKAs. We performed a multicenter retrospective review of 82 revision TKAs performed for aseptic failure. Follow-up averaged 76 and 121 months for the cemented and cementless groups respectively. Re-revision and radiographic failure rates for both femoral and tibial stems were similar between groups. We found similar improvements in knee society scores between the groups. At midterm follow-up, we found no difference in failure rates between the groups. Both types of stem appear to provide reliable fixation and are viable options in revision TKAs.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
- Cementation
- Knee Prosthesis
- Prosthesis Failure
Anatomy
- knee