This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Khaw, F. M. Articles by Gregg, P. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Khaw, F. M. Articles by Gregg, P. J.

A randomised, controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement

TEN-YEAR SURVIVAL ANALYSIS

Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, The Medical School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE2 4HH, UK.

L. M. G. Kirk, MCSP, SRP Research Physiotherapist

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear NE7 7DN, UK.

R. W. Morris, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Medical Statistics

Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, Royal Free Campus, Rowland Hill Street, London NW3 2P, UK.

P. J. Gregg, MD, FRCS, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon

South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Middlesbrough General Hospital, Ayresome Green Lane, Middlesbrough, Cleveland TS5 5AZ, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr F. M. Khaw.

We have carried out a long-term survival analysis of a prospective, randomised trail comparing cemented with cementless fixation of press-fit condylar primary total knee replacements. A consecutive series of 501 replacements received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation.

The patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (2.7 to 13.0) to establish the rate of survival of the implant. The ten-year survival was compared using life-table and Cox’s proportional hazard analysis.

No patient was lost to follow-up. The survival at ten years was 95.3% (95% CI 90.3 to 97.8) and 95.6% (95% CI 89.5 to 98.2) in the cemented and cementless groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for failure in cemented compared with cementless prostheses was 0.97 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.6). A comparison of the clinical outcome at ten years in 80 knees showed no difference between the two groups.

The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement at ten years is good irrespective of the method of fixation and brings into question the use of more expensive cementless implants.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Gandhi, D. Tsvetkov, J. R. Davey, and N. N. Mahomed Survival and clinical function of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total knee replacement: A META-ANALYSIS J Bone Joint Surg Br, July 1, 2009; 91-B(7): 889 - 895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. N. Baker, F. M. Khaw, L. M. G. Kirk, C. N. A. Esler, and P. J. Gregg A randomised controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement: 15-YEAR SURVIVAL ANALYSIS J Bone Joint Surg Br, December 1, 2007; 89-B(12): 1608 - 1614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-A. Epinette and M. T. Manley Hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: CLINICAL EXPERIENCE AT 10 TO 15 YEARS J Bone Joint Surg Br, January 1, 2007; 89-B(1): 34 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Cross and E. N. Parish A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF 1000 PATIENTS J Bone Joint Surg Br, August 1, 2005; 87-B(8): 1073 - 1076. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]