Background: Cemented and uncemented fixation are the primary methods of tibial prosthesis fixation in total knee arthroplasty. However, the optimal fixation method remains controversial. This article explored whether uncemented tibial fixation has better clinical and radiological outcomes, fewer complications, and revision rates compared to cemented tibial fixation.
Methods: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases up to September 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared uncemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and cemented TKA. The outcome assessment consisted of clinical and radiological outcomes, complications (aseptic loosening, infection, and thrombosis), and revision rate. Subgroup analysis was used to explore the effects of different fixation methods on knee scores in younger patients.
Results: Nine RCTs were finally analyzed with 686 uncemented knees and 678 cemented knees. The mean follow-up time was 12.6 years. The pooled data revealed significant advantages of uncemented fixations over cemented fixations in terms of the Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS) (p = 0.01) and the Knee Society Score-Pain (KSS-Pain) (p = 0.02). Cemented fixations showed significant advantages in maximum total point motion (MTPM) (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between uncemented fixation and cemented fixation regarding functional outcomes, range of motion, complications, and revision rates. When comparing among young people (<65 years), the differences in KSKS became statistically insignificant. No significant difference was shown in aseptic loosening and the revision rate among young patients.
Conclusions: The current evidence shows better knee score, less pain, comparable complications and revision rates for uncemented tibial prosthesis fixation, compared to cemented, in cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty.
Keywords: arthroplasty; knee replacement; osteoarthritis; randomized controlled trial; uncemented tibial fixation.