All-polyethylene Tibial Components are Equal to Metal-backed Components: Systematic Review and Meta-regression

• Published in: Clinical orthopaedics and related research 2012-12, Vol.470 (12), p.3549-3559
• Main Authors: Nouta, Klaas Auke, Verra, Wiebe C., Pijls, Bart G., Schoones, Jan W., Nelissen, Rob G. H. H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation; Biological and medical sciences; Biomechanical Phenomena; Conservative Orthopedics; Diseases of the osteoarticular system; Female; Foreign-Body Migration - etiology; Foreign-Body Migration - surgery; Humans; Knee; Knee Joint - physiopathology; Knee Joint - surgery; Knee Prosthesis; Male; Medical sciences; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Metals; Middle Aged; Orthopedics; Polyethylene; Prosthesis Design; Prosthesis Failure; Recovery of Function; Reoperation; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Sports Medicine; Surgery; Surgical Orthopedics; Survey; Tibia - physiopathology; Tibia - surgery; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0009-921X; 1528-1132
• DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2582-2

Background Less than 1% of all primary TKAs are performed with an all-polyethylene tibial component, although recent studies indicate all-polyethylene tibial components are equal to or better than metal-backed ones. Questions/purposes We asked whether the metal-backed tibial component was clinically superior to the all-polyethylene tibial component in primary TKAs regarding revision rates and clinical functioning, and which modifying variables affected the revision rate. Methods We systematically reviewed the literature for clinical studies comparing all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components used in primary TKAs in terms of revision rates, clinical scores, and radiologic parameters including radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1557 unique references of which 26 articles were included, comprising more than 12,500 TKAs with 231 revisions for any reason. Results Meta-analysis showed no differences between the all-polyethylene and metal-backed components except for higher migration of the metal-backed components. Meta-regression showed strong evidence that the all-polyethylene design has improved with time compared with the metal-backed design. Conclusions The all-polyethylene components were equivalent to metal-backed components regarding revision rates and clinical scores. The all-polyethylene components had better fixation (RSA) than the metal-backed components. The belief that metal-backed components are better than all-polyethylene ones seems to be based on studies from earlier TKAs. This might no longer be true for modern TKAs. Level of Evidence Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.