Press-fit versus cemented all-polyethylene patellar component: midterm results

J Arthroplasty. 2002 Jan;17(1):20-5. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.29328.

Abstract

This study compared the midterm results between press-fit and cemented implantation of a highly congruent, all-polyethylene patellar component. We followed prospectively 172 implants (cemented, n = 133; press-fit, n = 39). Average follow up was 6 years (range, 5-8 years). Patellofemoral complications occurred in 4 cemented patellae (2.3%). Two of these patellae required revision. Cemented implants had a significantly higher incidence of patellar maltracking (30% vs 8%; P= .005). No significant differences in the overall Knee Society scores (mean, 165; SD, 27) or any of its components relevant to patellofemoral function were detected between fixation methods. A retrieved specimen showed an intervening fibrous membrane at the implant-bone interface. The potential for macrophage-mediated osteolysis at this site is unknown. No other adverse outcome was associated with press-fit implantation. These results suggest that at midterm follow-up, press-fit implantation of this all-polyethylene patellar component may improve tracking and represents a viable alternative to cement fixation.

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee / methods*
  • Bone Cements*
  • Equipment Design
  • Female
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Humans
  • Knee Prosthesis*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Polyethylenes*
  • Postoperative Complications / etiology
  • Prospective Studies
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Bone Cements
  • Polyethylenes