All-Polyethylene versus Metal-Backed Tibial Components in Total Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

All-polyethylene tibial (APT) implants were incorporated into the initial design of the first total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems. Since then, a dynamic shift has taken place and metal-backed tibial (MBT) implants have become the gold standard in TKA. This has mostly been due to the theoretical advantages of intraoperative flexibility and improved biomechanics in addition to the heavy influence of device manufacturers. MBT implant comes not only with a higher cost but also with potential for complications such as osteolysis, backside wear, and thinning of the polyethylene insert, which were not previously seen with APT implant. The majority of studies comparing APT and MBT implants have shown no difference in clinical outcomes and survivorship. Newer studies from the past decade have begun highlighting the economic advantages of APT implant, especially in patients undergoing primary, uncomplicated TKA. Use of APT implants in younger patients and those with a body mass index > 35 has not been extensively studied, but the existing literature suggests the use of APT implant in these cohorts to be equally as acceptable. With modern implant design and instrumentation, rising utilization of TKA along with current and future economic strain on health care, the increased use of APT implant could result in massive savings without sacrificing positive patient outcomes.

Keywords

total Knee Arthroplasty - all-polyethylene tibia - metal-backed tibia

• References

• 1 Ducheyne P, Kagan II A, Lacey JA. Failure of total knee arthroplasty due to loosening and deformation of the tibial component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1978; 60 (03) 384-391
• 2 Gioe TJ, Maheshwari AV. The all-polyethylene tibial component in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (02) 478-487
• 3 Carter DR, Vasu R, Harris WH. Stress distributions in the acetabular region--II. Effects of cement thickness and metal backing of the total hip acetabular component. J Biomech 1982; 15 (03) 165-170
• 4 Pedersen DR, Crowninshield RD, Brand RA, Johnston RC. An axisymmetric model of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech 1982; 15 (04) 305-315
• 5 Murase K, Crowninshield RD, Pedersen DR, Chang TS. An analysis of tibial component design in total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech 1983; 16 (01) 13-22
• 6 Hamilton LR. UCI total knee replacement. A follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1982; 64 (05) 740-744
• 7 Faris PM, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Meding JB, Harty LD. The AGC all-polyethylene tibial component: a ten-year clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A [phone]
• 8 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
• 9 van der Ven A, Scott RD, Barnes CL. All-polyethylene tibial components in octogenarians: survivorship, performance, and cost. Am J Orthop 2014; 43 (01) 21-24
• 10 Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S, Ma W, Killeen KK. Excellent survival of all-polyethylene tibial components in a community joint registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 464 (464) 88-92
• 11 Sabeh K, Alam M, Rosas S, Hussain S, Schneiderbauer M. Cost analysis of all-polyethylene compared to metal-backed implants in total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2018; 32: 249-255
• 12 Apel DM, Tozzi JM, Dorr LD. Clinical comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; (273) 243-252
• 13 Huang CH, Liau JJ, Cheng CK. Fixed or mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2007; 2: 1
• 14 Gudnason A, Hailer NP, W-Dahl A, Sundberg M, Robertsson O. All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial components-an analysis of 27,733 cruciate-retaining total knee replacements from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (12) 994-999
• 15 Kremers HM, Sierra RJ, Schleck CD. , et al. Comparative survivorship of different tibial designs in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (14) e121
• 16 Nouta KA, Verra WC, Pijls BG, Schoones JW, Nelissen RG. All-polyethylene tibial components are equal to metal-backed components: systematic review and meta-regression. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (12) 3549-3559
• 17 Ranawat AS, Mohanty SS, Goldsmith SE, Rasquinha VJ, Rodriguez JA, Ranawat CS. Experience with an all-polyethylene total knee arthroplasty in younger, active patients with follow-up from 2 to 11 years. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20 (07) (Suppl. 03) 7-11
• 18 Mohan V, Inacio MC, Namba RS, Sheth D, Paxton EW. Monoblock all-polyethylene tibial components have a lower risk of early revision than metal-backed modular components. Acta Orthop 2013; 84 (06) 530-536
• 19 Toman J, Iorio R, Healy WL. All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components are equivalent with BMI of less than 37.5. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 108-116
• 20 Dalury DF, Tucker KK, Kelley TC. All-polyethylene tibial components in obese patients are associated with low failure at midterm followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 117-124
• 21 Ryd L, Albrektsson BE, Carlsson L. , et al. Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis as a predictor of mechanical loosening of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1995; 77 (03) 377-383
• 22 Muller SD, Deehan DJ, Holland JP. , et al. Should we reconsider all-polyethylene tibial implants in total knee replacement?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (12) 1596-1602
• 23 Hyldahl H, Regnér L, Carlsson L, Kärrholm J, Weidenhielm L. All-polyethylene vs. metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 1. Horizontally cemented components: AP better fixated than MB. Acta Orthop 2005; 76 (06) 769-777
• 24 Hyldahl H, Regnér L, Carlsson L, Kärrholm J, Weidenhielm L. All-polyethylene vs. metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 2. Completely cemented components: MB not superior to AP components. Acta Orthop 2005; 76 (06) 778-784