Ceramic Coatings Confer No Survivorship Advantages in Total Knee Arthroplasty-A Single-Center Series of 1641 Knees

Christopher J Lodge; Hosam E Matar; Reshid Berber; Philip J Radford; Benjamin V Bloch

doi:10.1016/j.artd.2022.101086

Ceramic Coatings Confer No Survivorship Advantages in Total Knee Arthroplasty-A Single-Center Series of 1641 Knees

Arthroplast Today. 2023 Jan 16:19:101086. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2022.101086. eCollection 2023 Feb.

Authors

Christopher J Lodge¹, Hosam E Matar¹, Reshid Berber¹, Philip J Radford¹, Benjamin V Bloch¹

Affiliation

¹ Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham, UK.

Abstract

Background: Ceramic coatings in total knee arthroplasty have been introduced with the aim of reducing wear and consequently improving implant survivorship. We studied both cobalt-chrome-molybdenum (CoCrMo) and ceramic-coated components of the same implant design from a single center to identify if the ceramic coating conferred any benefit.

Methods: We identified 1641 Columbus total knee arthroplasties (Aesculap AG, Tüttlingen, Germany) from a prospectively collected arthroplasty database. Of the 1641, 983 were traditional CoCrMo, and 659 had the Columbus AS ceramic coating. Patients were followed up until death or revision of any component of the implant.

Results: There was no significant difference in implant survivorship using any component revision as the endpoint between the CoCrMo femur and the ceramic-coated femur at a mean of 9.2 years in follow-up for the CoCrMo group and 5 years for the ceramic-coated group (37 vs 14; P = .76). There was no reduction in the proportion of components revised for aseptic loosening or infection in the ceramic-coated cohort.

Conclusions: At midterm follow-up, there was no benefit in terms of implant survivorship in using a ceramic coating.

Keywords: Ceramic coated TKA; Implant survivorship; Surface coating; Total knee arthroplasty.