This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Further opinion Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map 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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gandhi, R. Articles by Mahomed, N. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gandhi, R. Articles by Mahomed, N. N.

Survival and clinical function of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total knee replacement

A META-ANALYSIS

¹ Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst St, East Wing 1-435, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5R 2S8.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr R. Gandhi; e-mail: Rajiv.Gandhi{at}uhn.on.ca

Using meta-analysis we compared the survival and clinical outcomes of cemented and uncemented techniques in primary total knee replacement. We reviewed randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing cemented and uncemented fixation. Our primary outcome was survival of the implant free of aseptic loosening. Our secondary outcome was joint function as measured by the Knee Society score. We identified 15 studies that met our final eligibility criteria. The combined odds ratio for failure of the implant due to aseptic loosening for the uncemented group was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 6.5) (p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis of data only from randomised controlled trials showed no differences between the groups for odds of aseptic loosening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.55 to 6.40, p = 0.314). The weighted mean difference for the Knee Society score was 0.005 (95% CI –0.26 to 0.26) (p = 0.972).

There was improved survival of the cemented compared to uncemented implants, with no statistically significant difference in the mean Knee Society score between groups for all pooled data.