Clinical & Radiographic Outcomes of Cemented vs. Diaphyseal Engaging Cementless Stems in Aseptic Revision TKA

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 multi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2014-09, Vol.29 (9), p.224-228
Main Authors: Gililland, Jeremy M., MD, Gaffney, Christian J., MD, Odum, Susan M., PhD, Fehring, Thomas K., MD, Peters, Christopher L., MD, Beaver, Walter B., MD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation
aseptic failure
Cementation - methods
cemented stem
cementless stem
Diaphyses
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Incidence
Knee Prosthesis
Male
Middle Aged
Orthopedics
Postoperative Complications - epidemiology
Prosthesis Failure
Reoperation
Retrospective Studies
revision TKA
stem fixation
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:0883-5403
1532-8406
DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.049