J Knee Surg 2019; 32(08): 704-709
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1678686
Special Focus Section
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Cemented versus Cementless Stems in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Adam S. Driesman
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York
,
William Macaulay
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York
,
Ran Schwarzkopf
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

20 October 2018

10 January 2019

Publication Date:
08 February 2019 (online)

Abstract

Successful arthroplasty of the knee requires a stable foundation for implant placement, adequate mechanical alignment, and durable fixation. In the revision setting, the later may be difficult to obtain, especially in the setting of significant bone loss. While augments, cones, and sleeves have greatly enhanced the modern knee surgeon's ability to gain fixation in metaphyseal bone, stems continue to be a cornerstone tool in revision arthroplasty to bypass deficient or damaged bone surfaces to enhance structural stability of a revision construct. When placing a revision construct, there remains two options to assist with fixation, either fully cementing the entire implant or using a “hybrid” system, which combines an uncemented press-fit diaphyseal stem with cement in both the metaphysis and metaphysis–diaphysis junction of the keel. In this review, we discuss the history of these two techniques, evaluate the theoretical benefits and pitfalls, and assess the best evidence supporting each in the literature. To conclude, we will examine future directions and questions needed to better elucidate the best treatment options in a variety of revision scenarios.

 
  • References

  • 1 Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (03) 216-223
  • 2 Potter III GD, Abdel MP, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Midterm results of porous tantalum femoral cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (15) 1286-1291
  • 3 Chalmers BP, Desy NM, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Taunton MJ. Survivorship of metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (05) 1565-1570
  • 4 Nadorf J, Kinkel S, Gantz S, Jakubowitz E, Kretzer JP. Tibial revision knee arthroplasty with metaphyseal sleeves: the effect of stems on implant fixation and bone flexibility. PLoS One 2017; 12 (05) e0177285
  • 5 Jones GB. Total knee replacement-the Walldius hinge. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973; (94) 50-57
  • 6 Phillips H, Taylor JG. The Walldius hinge arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1975; 57 (01) 59-62
  • 7 Eftekhar NS. Total knee-replacement arthroplasty. Results with the intramedullary adjustable total knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1983; 65 (03) 293-309
  • 8 Nelson CL, Vanushkina M, Irgit K, Strohecker K, Bowen TR. Stemmed femoral implants show lower failure rates in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2015; 22 (05) 429-434
  • 9 Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. A 30-mm cemented stem extension provides adequate fixation of the tibial component in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (01) 185-189
  • 10 Mabry TM, Hanssen AD. The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (04) (Suppl. 01) 56-60
  • 11 Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones RD. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19 (06) 311-318
  • 12 Jazrawi LM, Bai B, Kummer FJ, Hiebert R, Stuchin SA. The effect of stem modularity and mode of fixation on tibial component stability in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16 (06) 759-767
  • 13 Gofton WT, Tsigaras H, Butler RA, Patterson JJ, Barrack RL, Rorabeck CH. Revision total knee arthroplasty: fixation with modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 158-168
  • 14 Mabry TM, Vessely MB, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular cemented stems: long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (06) (Suppl. 02) 100-105
  • 15 Scuderi GR. Revision total knee arthroplasty: how much constraint is enough?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 300-305
  • 16 Parsley BS, Sugano N, Bertolusso R, Conditt MA. Mechanical alignment of tibial stems in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (07) (Suppl. 01) 33-36
  • 17 Greene JW, Reynolds SM, Stimac JD, Malkani AL, Massini MA. Midterm results of hybrid cement technique in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (04) 570-574
  • 18 Pelt CE, Gililland JM, Doble J, Stronach BM, Peters CL. Hybrid total knee arthroplasty revisited: midterm followup of hybrid versus cemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty. BioMed Res Int 2013; 2013: 854871
  • 19 Wood GC, Naudie DDR, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB. Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (03) 810-817
  • 20 Easley ME, Cushner FD, Scott WN. Insall & Scott surgery of the knee. Surg Knee 2001; 473-520
  • 21 Berend ME, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Jackson MD, Davis KE, Malinzak RA. Use of screws and cement in revision TKA with primary or revision specific prosthesis with up to 17 years followup. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (01) 86-89
  • 22 Ritter MA, Harty LD. Medial screws and cement: a possible mechanical augmentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (05) 587-589
  • 23 Murray PB, Rand JA, Hanssen AD. Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (309) 116-123
  • 24 Whaley AL, Trousdale RT, Rand JA, Hanssen AD. Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (05) 592-599
  • 25 Choy WS, Yang DS, Lee KW, Lee SK, Kim KJ, Chang SH. Cemented versus cementless fixation of a tibial component in LCS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12) 2397-2401
  • 26 Lombardi Jr AV, Berasi CC, Berend KR. Evolution of tibial fixation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22 (04) (Suppl. 01) 25-29
  • 27 Fehring TK, Odum S, Olekson C, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy TH. Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 416 (416) 217-224
  • 28 Haas SB, Insall JN, Montgomery III W, Windsor RE. Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77 (11) 1700-1707
  • 29 Peters CL, Erickson J, Kloepper RG, Mohr RA. Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular components inserted with metaphyseal cement and stems without cement. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (03) 302-308
  • 30 Shannon BD, Klassen JF, Rand JA, Berry DJ, Trousdale RT. Revision total knee arthroplasty with cemented components and uncemented intramedullary stems. J Arthroplasty 2003; 18 (07) (Suppl. 01) 27-32
  • 31 Whiteside LA. Cementless fixation issues in revision total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 177-182
  • 32 Elia EA, Lotke PA. Results of revision total knee arthroplasty associated with significant bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; (271) 114-121
  • 33 Peters CL, Erickson JA, Gililland JM. Clinical and radiographic results of 184 consecutive revision total knee arthroplasties placed with modular cementless stems. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24 (6, Suppl): 48-53
  • 34 Skwara A, Figiel J, Knott T, Paletta JRJ, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Tibesku CO. Primary stability of tibial components in TKA: in vitro comparison of two cementing techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (10) 1199-1205
  • 35 Sathappan SS, Pang H-N, Manoj A, Ashwin T, Satku K. Does stress shielding occur with the use of long-stem prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty?. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (02) 179-183
  • 36 Barrack RL, Rorabeck C, Burt M, Sawhney J. Pain at the end of the stem after revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (367) 216-225
  • 37 Patel AR, Barlow B, Ranawat AS. Stem length in revision total knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8 (04) 407-412
  • 38 Barrack RL, Stanley T, Burt M, Hopkins S. The effect of stem design on end-of-stem pain in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19 (07) (Suppl. 02) 119-124
  • 39 Kosse NM, van Hellemondt GG, Wymenga AB, Heesterbeek PJC. Comparable stability of cemented vs press-fit placed stems in revision total knee arthroplasty with mild to moderate bone loss: 6.5-year results from a randomized controlled trial with radiostereometric analysis. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (01) 197-201
  • 40 Petursson G, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI. , et al. Better survival of hybrid total knee arthroplasty compared to cemented arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2015; 86 (06) 714-720
  • 41 Gililland JM, Gaffney CJ, Odum SM, Fehring TK, Peters CL, Beaver WB. Clinical & radiographic outcomes of cemented vs. diaphyseal engaging cementless stems in aseptic revision TKA. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (9, Suppl): 224-228
  • 42 Edwards PK, Fehring TK, Hamilton WG, Perricelli B, Beaver WB, Odum SM. Are cementless stems more durable than cemented stems in two-stage revisions of infected total knee arthroplasties?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (01) 206-211
  • 43 Wang C, Pfitzner T, von Roth P, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R. Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless-a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24 (10) 3200-3211