Primary Total Knee Fixation Methods in Morbidly Obese Patients: Cemented, Stemmed, and Cementless Designs.

Abstract

Patients who had a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 pose challenges in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly aseptic tibial loosening. This study compared survivorship, clinical outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of TKA using cemented tibiae with stems, cemented tibiae without stems, and cementless tibial designs in this high BMI population. This retrospective cohort included 1,359 patients who had a BMI ≥ 40 undergoing primary TKA between 2010 and 2024. Patients were divided into three groups based on tibial design: cemented tibiae with stems, cemented tibiae without stems, and cementless tibiae. The primary outcome was implant survivorship. The secondary outcomes included revision for aseptic tibial loosening, revision for any reason, complications, PROMs, including the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and Knee Society Score (KS), as well as range of motion (ROM) and Tibio-femoral Angle (TFA). Survivorship at one, two, and five years was highest in the cementless group; however, the differences were not statistically significant. There were no cases of aseptic tibial loosening observed in the cemented tibiae with stems group, while three cases (0.38%) occurred in the cemented tibiae without stems group, and one (0.36%) in the cementless group. Revision for any reason occurred in 2.33% of cases in the cemented tibiae with stems group, 2.17% in the cemented tibiae without stems group, and 0.36% in the cementless tibiae group. The PROMS improved in all groups with no significant postoperative differences. In morbidly obese patients undergoing primary TKA, all three tibial component designs demonstrated high survivorship with low rates of aseptic tibial loosening. While cementless designs showed promising early survivorship, cemented tibial stems had the lowest incidence of aseptic loosening. Our findings suggest that all fixation methods are viable options, with implant selection best guided by patient-specific factors and surgeon preference.