Loading…

Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia versus Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract Background With the introduction of new fixation systems and designs, there has been a recent reemergence of interest in cementless fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. However, little is known regarding the clinical features and survivorship of the cementless porous...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2016
Main Authors: Hu, Bin, MD, PhD, Chen, Yunlin, MD, Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD, Wu, Haobo, MD, Yan, Shigui, MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title The Journal of arthroplasty
container_volume
creator Hu, Bin, MD, PhD
Chen, Yunlin, MD
Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD
Wu, Haobo, MD
Yan, Shigui, MD
description Abstract Background With the introduction of new fixation systems and designs, there has been a recent reemergence of interest in cementless fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. However, little is known regarding the clinical features and survivorship of the cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component compared to the conventional cemented modular tibial component. Methods We conducted a literature search of multiple databases for comparative studies published before June 2015 that investigated the outcomes of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia versus conventional cemented modular tibia. A pooled analysis was performed. The outcomes of interest were postoperative functional score, range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, radiolucent lines, loosening of the tibial component, and length of operation. Results Six studies involving 977 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The use of a cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component may associate with a slightly higher functional score, fewer radiolucent lines, and shorter operation. No significant difference was seen in regard to the range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, and loosening of the component between the two groups. Conclusion However, due to variation among the included studies, the use of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia seems to achieve no substantial superiority over that of the conventional cemented modular tibia at 5-year follow-up. Data concerning the long-term prognosis of this novel implant should continue to be collected and analyzed.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.011
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>elsevier</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S0883540316306532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0883540316306532</els_id><sourcerecordid>1_s2_0_S0883540316306532</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S08835403163065323</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqlj01qwzAQhbVooenPBbqaC1iVrNikXRRMaCmUQKDem4kzpXJkqWjkgKGHr0Jzg67m5-M93hPiXiupla4fBokxfcky71I9SqX1hVio1coU1VKZK3HNPKj8rarlQvysaSSfHDHDNsQwMbToE7pphE3wYedCf4DW7izCkSJn_qegfeb7yWE8U-thG-2IcYY2ZAN490TQ5CgxfDvkND9BAxtKWDQe3cyWb8XlJzqmu_O8Ec-vL-36raB8HC3FrnfW2x7dgWbiIUwxK7nTHZed6j5OpU6ddG1UXZnS_NvgF7CxZoM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia versus Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Hu, Bin, MD, PhD ; Chen, Yunlin, MD ; Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD ; Wu, Haobo, MD ; Yan, Shigui, MD</creator><creatorcontrib>Hu, Bin, MD, PhD ; Chen, Yunlin, MD ; Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD ; Wu, Haobo, MD ; Yan, Shigui, MD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background With the introduction of new fixation systems and designs, there has been a recent reemergence of interest in cementless fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. However, little is known regarding the clinical features and survivorship of the cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component compared to the conventional cemented modular tibial component. Methods We conducted a literature search of multiple databases for comparative studies published before June 2015 that investigated the outcomes of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia versus conventional cemented modular tibia. A pooled analysis was performed. The outcomes of interest were postoperative functional score, range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, radiolucent lines, loosening of the tibial component, and length of operation. Results Six studies involving 977 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The use of a cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component may associate with a slightly higher functional score, fewer radiolucent lines, and shorter operation. No significant difference was seen in regard to the range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, and loosening of the component between the two groups. Conclusion However, due to variation among the included studies, the use of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia seems to achieve no substantial superiority over that of the conventional cemented modular tibia at 5-year follow-up. Data concerning the long-term prognosis of this novel implant should continue to be collected and analyzed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-5403</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.011</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Orthopedics</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arthroplasty, 2016</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4009,27902,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hu, Bin, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yunlin, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Haobo, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Shigui, MD</creatorcontrib><title>Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia versus Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis</title><title>The Journal of arthroplasty</title><description>Abstract Background With the introduction of new fixation systems and designs, there has been a recent reemergence of interest in cementless fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. However, little is known regarding the clinical features and survivorship of the cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component compared to the conventional cemented modular tibial component. Methods We conducted a literature search of multiple databases for comparative studies published before June 2015 that investigated the outcomes of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia versus conventional cemented modular tibia. A pooled analysis was performed. The outcomes of interest were postoperative functional score, range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, radiolucent lines, loosening of the tibial component, and length of operation. Results Six studies involving 977 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The use of a cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component may associate with a slightly higher functional score, fewer radiolucent lines, and shorter operation. No significant difference was seen in regard to the range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, and loosening of the component between the two groups. Conclusion However, due to variation among the included studies, the use of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia seems to achieve no substantial superiority over that of the conventional cemented modular tibia at 5-year follow-up. Data concerning the long-term prognosis of this novel implant should continue to be collected and analyzed.</description><subject>Orthopedics</subject><issn>0883-5403</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid/><recordid>eNqlj01qwzAQhbVooenPBbqaC1iVrNikXRRMaCmUQKDem4kzpXJkqWjkgKGHr0Jzg67m5-M93hPiXiupla4fBokxfcky71I9SqX1hVio1coU1VKZK3HNPKj8rarlQvysaSSfHDHDNsQwMbToE7pphE3wYedCf4DW7izCkSJn_qegfeb7yWE8U-thG-2IcYY2ZAN490TQ5CgxfDvkND9BAxtKWDQe3cyWb8XlJzqmu_O8Ec-vL-36raB8HC3FrnfW2x7dgWbiIUwxK7nTHZed6j5OpU6ddG1UXZnS_NvgF7CxZoM</recordid><startdate>2016</startdate><enddate>2016</enddate><creator>Hu, Bin, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Chen, Yunlin, MD</creator><creator>Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD</creator><creator>Wu, Haobo, MD</creator><creator>Yan, Shigui, MD</creator><scope/></search><sort><creationdate>2016</creationdate><title>Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia versus Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis</title><author>Hu, Bin, MD, PhD ; Chen, Yunlin, MD ; Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD ; Wu, Haobo, MD ; Yan, Shigui, MD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S08835403163065323</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Orthopedics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hu, Bin, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yunlin, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Haobo, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Shigui, MD</creatorcontrib><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hu, Bin, MD, PhD</au><au>Chen, Yunlin, MD</au><au>Zhu, Hanxiao, MD, PhD</au><au>Wu, Haobo, MD</au><au>Yan, Shigui, MD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia versus Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle><date>2016</date><risdate>2016</risdate><issn>0883-5403</issn><abstract>Abstract Background With the introduction of new fixation systems and designs, there has been a recent reemergence of interest in cementless fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. However, little is known regarding the clinical features and survivorship of the cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component compared to the conventional cemented modular tibial component. Methods We conducted a literature search of multiple databases for comparative studies published before June 2015 that investigated the outcomes of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia versus conventional cemented modular tibia. A pooled analysis was performed. The outcomes of interest were postoperative functional score, range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, radiolucent lines, loosening of the tibial component, and length of operation. Results Six studies involving 977 patients were eligible for the meta-analysis. The use of a cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibial component may associate with a slightly higher functional score, fewer radiolucent lines, and shorter operation. No significant difference was seen in regard to the range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, total complications, reoperation, and loosening of the component between the two groups. Conclusion However, due to variation among the included studies, the use of cementless porous tantalum monoblock tibia seems to achieve no substantial superiority over that of the conventional cemented modular tibia at 5-year follow-up. Data concerning the long-term prognosis of this novel implant should continue to be collected and analyzed.</abstract><doi>10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.011</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0883-5403
ispartof The Journal of arthroplasty, 2016
issn 0883-5403
language eng
recordid cdi_elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S0883540316306532
source ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Orthopedics
title Cementless Porous Tantalum Monoblock Tibia versus Cemented Modular Tibia in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T11%3A06%3A05IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-elsevier&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cementless%20Porous%20Tantalum%20Monoblock%20Tibia%20versus%20Cemented%20Modular%20Tibia%20in%20Primary%20Total%20Knee%20Arthroplasty:%20A%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arthroplasty&rft.au=Hu,%20Bin,%20MD,%20PhD&rft.date=2016&rft.issn=0883-5403&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.011&rft_dat=%3Celsevier%3E1_s2_0_S0883540316306532%3C/elsevier%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S08835403163065323%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true