Aims

The purpose of this study was to assess mid-term survivorship following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with Optetrak Logic components and identify the most common revision indications at a single institution.

Purpose: Most series on revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have cited femorotibial instability as a frequent cause of failure, after loosening and patellar complications. The purpose of this study was to analyse TKA failure due to femorotibial instability and to search whether an initial defect in technique or indication was the cause of stability and thus to draw therapeutic conclusions for revision surgery. Material and methods: Between 1989 and 2000, 43 aseptic TKA required revision with implant replacement (tibial, femoral or both). During the same period 1013 first-intention TKA were implanted. Among the failures, implant loosening (femoral, tibial or both) was noted as the cause in 22 cases, isolated femorotibial instability in 15. Among the 22 loosenings, there were seven cases of femorotibial instability not related to implant migration or wear. We retained the 22 cases of femorol instability related to ligaments (15 cases of isolated instability and 7 cases associated with loosening) for study. Clinical data recorded were: initial diagnosis, patient age and sex, manifestations of instability, time to revision after first intervention. Radiological data recorded were: type of prosthesis implanted, implant position (alpha and beta angles), pre- and postoperative mechanical femorotibial alignment, tibial slope, tibial and femoral mechanical angles (searching for extra-articular deformation). Results: The 22 revisions conserned 17 women and five men. Signs were pain and sensation of instability. Mean time to revision was two years eight months for isolated instability and six and one half years for instability associated with loosening. Prostheses were implanted in different units and thus varied: all were semi-constrained implants. Among the 22 instabilities leading to revision, we found 13 frontal instabilities, three sagittal instabilities, and six global instabilities. Analysis of the patient files demonstrated that failure could be explained in 19 cases by several defects, sometimes associated: insufficient release during initial intervention (medial or lateral release), excessive release (n=1), varus or valgus frontal or tibial cut, excessive tibial slope, internal rotation of the femoral or tibial implant, extra-articular deformation corrected intra-articularly (n=4), insufficient medial collateral ligament with major genu valgum (n=3). Certain failures were particular for certain implants, posterior laxity after implant with preservation and insufficiency of the posterior cruciate ligament, dislocaton of a posterior stabilised implant (n=1). Discussion: This analysis of factors contributing to failure by femorotibial instability demonstrated that the majority of the cases have a technical explanation: 1) defective cuts and ligament imbalance are frequent; the cut or ligament release should be revised when changing the prosthesis. 2) Ligament insufficiency generally involving the medial collateral ligament in knees with major genu valgum; a more constrained prosthesis should be used or, as advocated by some, ligamentoplasty. 3) Extra-articular deformations are generally observed in knees with major genu varum; osteotomy may be needed if the extra-articular deformation exceeds 10°. Conclusion: Femorotibial instability is a frequent cause of early failure of TKA. Greater precision in prosthesis implantation and correct ligament balance as well as proper choice of the degree of constraint should allow reduction of this frequency

In 1983 we underscored the importance of understanding the cause or mechanism of failure following total knee arthroplasty. In this article we reported that revision total knee replacement was generally unsuccessful unless the surgeon new the mechanism of failure. In the ensuing years we have collectively made improvements in instrumentation, component design and material properties such that the mechanisms of failure are now different and less common than in the earlier years. Early failure following total knee arthroplasty is generally related to technical issues. There are a myriad of such issues but many of them relate to component positioning and soft tissue balance. Post-operative wound complications are concerning as they cause an increased incidence of deep infection. Hematoma from over anticoagulation is a particular problem that leads to stiffness and increased risk for infection. Most knee systems now have multiple sizing options and instrument systems that can improve reproducibility of component implantation. Midterm failure is often due to flexion instability which has been reported in cruciate substitution and cruciate retention knees. The instability can be global, mid flexion, flexion or a combination of all 3. Issues with extension and mid flexion instability but no flexion instability are generally those with tight extensor mechanisms. Pain and stiffness are frequently due to component malalignment. One common problem is abnormal internal rotation of the tibial component. Late failure in our institution is generally seen due to wear and loosening from earlier designs with inferior polyethylene. Late hematogenous infection occurs in people with immunocompromise, severe diabetes and diagnoses that alter the patient's ability to mount an immune response. The newest epidemic in total knee failure has been that of periprosthetic fracture. As these patients are becoming older and with worse proprioception, they are at greater risk. Generalised osteopenia and increased activity also increase the risk of fracture. Total knee arthroplasty represents a remarkable improvement in the care of the patient with knee arthritis. It is only by focusing upon and decreasing the causes of failure that we will advance use of this procedure in patient care

Most presentations about total knee arthroplasty begin with a statement that the procedure has been one of the great successes of modern surgery. However, not all patients consider their total knee a success. Success requires that patients experience relief of arthritic pain, return of function, and express satisfaction with the result. Patients need to be aware of the limitations of implants and accept reasonable expectations for the arthroplasty. If they don't, your next revision will likely be on a unsatisfied patient who had unrealistic expectations. The surgeon who operated on the patient for the primary intervention may feel obliged to try to make it better. Don't make that mistake. Avoid your next revision by only intervening when there is a clear indication.

In a recent patient survey, 15–20% of patients (and maybe more) were not completely satisfied with their arthroplasty in spite of having recent implant designs. It is a fact that some patients will not be satisfied with any intervention. Fibromyalgia, depression, high narcotic use for arthritic pain, secondary gain (e.g., Worker's Compensation claims pending) are some of the conditions that predict a difficult post-operative course and an unsatisfied patient who will push for revision. To avoid your next revision, choose patients wisely and make sure they understand that the total joint is a poor substitute for the normal knee.

Design surgeons and engineers have developed techniques for a specific implant system to minimise the problems of malrotation, malalignment, instability, anterior knee pain, stiffness, loosening and polyethylene wear. Surgeons should be careful to use the recommended implantation philosophy and technique to avoid these problems. Choose implant systems with a proven track record. Learn how and why to use the instruments correctly. Study a system well and know the nuances. If you don't know the system well enough, take a course from the designers and ask questions. Avoid your next revision by using a prosthesis system as it was intended.

Prosthetic joint infection remains a major reason for revision. Some patients have a greater chance of developing infection. Attention to detail from pre-operative preparation to rehabilitation will minimise, but cannot eliminate, the occurrence of infection. The recently published International Consensus on Prosthetic Joint Infection contains recommendations that should be followed to minimise the chance of infection. Avoid your next revision by following the recommendations to minimise the chance of infection.

The indication for revision is diagnosis of a problem that can be corrected with surgery. If a patient is satisfied with a result, revision surgery would only rarely be indicated regardless of the radiographic result. (Severe wear would be an exception to this.) Avoid you next revision by recognizing that “the enemy of good is better”.

Most presentations about total knee arthroplasty begin with a statement that the procedure has been one of the great successes of modern surgery. However, not all patients consider their total knee a success. Success requires that patients experience relief of arthritic pain, return of function, and satisfaction with the result. Patients need to be aware of the limitations of implants and accept reasonable expectations for the arthroplasty. If they don't, your next revision will likely be on a dissatisfied patient who had unrealistic expectations. The surgeon who operated on the patient for the primary intervention may feel obliged to try to make it better. Avoid your next revision by only intervening when there is a clear indication.

In a recent patient survey, 15–20% of patients were not completely satisfied with their arthroplasty in spite of having recent implant designs. It is a fact that some patients will not be satisfied with any intervention. Fibromyalgia, depression, high narcotic use for arthritic pain, secondary gain (e.g., Worker's Compensation claims pending) are some of the conditions that predict a difficult post-operative course and an unsatisfied patient who will push for revision. To avoid your next revision, choose patients wisely and make sure they understand that the total joint is a poor substitute for the normal knee.

Design surgeons and engineers have developed techniques for a specific implant system to minimise the problems of malrotation, malalignment, instability, anterior knee pain, stiffness, loosening and polyethylene wear. Surgeons should be careful to use the recommended implantation philosophy and technique to avoid these problems. Choose implant systems with a proven track record. Learn how and why to use the instruments correctly. Study a system well and know the nuances. If you don't know the system well enough, take a course from the designers and ask questions. Using a system as it was intended will help avoid your next revision.

Prosthetic joint infection remains a major reason for revision. Some patients have a greater chance of developing infection. Attention to detail from pre-operative preparation to rehabilitation will minimise, but cannot eliminate, the occurrence of infection. The recently published International Consensus on Prosthetic Joint Infection contains recommendations that should be followed to minimise the chance of infection and thus help avoid your next revision for infection.

The indication for revision is presentation of a problem that can be corrected with surgery. If a patient is satisfied with a result, revision surgery would only rarely be indicated regardless of the radiographic result. (Severe wear would be an exception to this.) Recognising that “the enemy of good is better” will help you avoid your next revision.

Aim

Knee arthrodesis (KA) and above knee amputation (AKA) have been used for salvage of failed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the setting of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The factors that lead to a failed fusion and progression to AKA are not well understood. The purpose of our study was to determine factors associated with failure of a staged fusion for PJI and predictive of progression to AKA.

Due to the success, quantified by both clinical improvement and durability, the number of TKA procedures performed annually has steadily increased since its introduction and it is predicted that approximately 3 million knee arthroplasties will be performed in 2030. Part of this exponential growth is due to indication expansion and TKA is now often performed for younger, more active and heavier patients that historically would have been denied the procedure. Combined with an aging population, often afflicted with comorbidities, it is not surprising that the number of TKA revisions performed annually is also increasing. TKA failure, with subsequent revision surgery, is a costly problem often associated with substantial morbidity. In order to reduce the incidence of TKA failure, it is critical that we expand our knowledge of the issue by asking the question, why are TKAs failing today? Due to a demographically evolving arthroplasty population, the introduction of the new surgical techniques and the routine addition to the market of next generation implants, it is likely that the mechanisms for TKA failure will change over time. It is also possible that there may be regional and even institutional variance when the reasons for TKA failure are investigated. Therefore, it is critical that this question concerning failure mechanisms be repeatedly studied and examined by various study designs in multiple clinical settings. This lecture will focus on several key aspects of TKA failure: Early (less than 2 to 5 years) vs. late failure; Historically, why did TKAs fail and what has been done to decrease certain failure modes; Why are TKAs failing today?. Only with a comprehensive understanding of TKA failure mechanisms will we be able to properly address this problem and focus our efforts and resources on meaningful solutions. Even incremental improvements that only modestly decrease TKA failure incidence should provide our healthcare system with enormous savings and more importantly, greatly decrease patient morbidity

Introduction. The utilization of lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) has increased for diagnosing metal sensitivity associated with TKA, but its validity for the diagnosis of TKA failure due to an immune reaction has not been established. Methods. We performed a retrospective study of 27 well-fixed, aseptic primary TKAs with persistent pain and/or stiffness, revised by a single, experienced surgeon for suspected metal allergy to nickel based on a positive LTT. Periprosthetic tissue samples obtained at the time of revision surgery were scored using the aseptic lymphocytic vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) scoring system. Results. Eight patients were categorized as mildly reactive, 8 reactive, and 11 highly reactive to nickel by LTT. The predominant findings on routine histology were fibrosis and varying degrees of lymphocytic infiltration in 17/27 (63%) of the cases. The average ALVAL score of the cohort was 3.1 ± 1.9, out of a maximum score of 10. Average Knee Society Scores (KSS) improved post-revision, as did range of motion (all p<0.01). Neither LTT stimulation index as a continuous variable nor as a categorical variable (mild, moderate, high) was correlated with ALVAL score, pre-operative function, or change in function at last follow-up (0.015 < r < 0.30, 0.13 < p < 0.95) as measured by KSS. In addition, the ALVAL score did not correlate significantly with either pre-operative or post-operative KSS or range of motion (0.061 < r < 0.365, 0.09 < p < 0.88). Conclusions. Based on this analysis including histopathology, LTT results alone are insufficient for the diagnosis of TKA failure due to an immune reaction. A positive LTT may not indicate that an immune reaction is the cause of pain and stiffness post-TKA. The role of LTT in assessing immune failure of TKA needs further investigation. Diagnostic criteria for immune failure of a TKA need to be established

Introduction. Mechanical or corrosive failure of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) is difficult to diagnose with current laboratory and radiographic analyses. As such, the goal of this study was to determine the mean blood concentration of cobalt, chromium, and titanium in a series of revision TKAs with mechanical implant failure and evaluate whether they facilitated identification of the underlying TKA failure mechanism. Methods. Serum cobalt, chromium, and titanium levels and synovial fluid characteristics were evaluated in 12 patients (13 aseptic revision TKAs) who underwent revision TKA between 2000 and 2020 at a single academic institution for mechanical implant failure or corrosion. Seventy-five percent were re-revisions of previously revised TKAs. Mean time to revision was 6 years. Modular metallic junctions were present in 100%. Twenty-five percent did not have another in situ total joint arthroplasty, and the remaining patients did not have a metal-on-metal articulation that could lead to elevation in serum metal ion levels. Mean follow-up after the revision TKA was 8 months. Results. Mean serum cobalt, chromium, and titanium concentrations were 11 ng/mL, 6 ng/mL, and 3 ng/mL, respectively. Serum metal ion levels facilitated failure mechanism identification in 75%, which included modular junction failure (6 cases), constraint locking mechanism failure (3 cases), corrosion of modular metallic interfaces (2 cases), and implant fracture (1 case). Arthrocentesis was performed in 75%. Mean synovial fluid cell count was 950 cells/mcL. Monocytes were the predominant mean cell type (41%), followed by neutrophils (35%), and lymphocytes (22%). Conclusion. Serum metal ion assessment should be considered when the etiology of painful primary or revision TKAs, particularly those with modular metallic junctions, remains elusive after routine evaluation

Purpose. To identify the modes of failure after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients ≤ 55 years of age and to compare with those ≥ 56 years of age in patients who underwent revision TKA. Materials and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 256 revision TKAs among patients who underwent TKA for knee osteoarthritis between January 1992 and December 2012. The causes of TKA failure were analyzed and compared between those ≤ 55 years of age and those ≥ 56 years of age. The age at the time of primary surgery was ≤ 55 years in 30 patients (31 knees) and ≥ 56 years in 210 patients (225 knees). Results. A total of 453 TKAs were performed in ≤ 55-year-old patients between 1992 and 2012. Of these, 31 cases (7%) were revised. Their mean age was 50.6 years (range, 40 to 55 years) at primary surgery and the interval from primary TKA to revision was 8.6 years (range, 1 to 17 years). In the ≤ 55 years of age group, the most common modes of TKA failure was polyethylene wear in 14 cases (45%) followed by infection in 8 cases (26%) and component loosening in 5 cases (17%). The other conditions led to TKA failure were stiffness, periprosthetic fracture, malalignment, and osteolysis in one case each (3%). Of the 11,363 TKAs that were performed in ≥ 56-year-old patients, 225 cases (2%) required a revision. The mean interval between the operations was 5.3 years (range, 0.1 to 18 years). The major modes of failure of primary TKA include polyethylene wear in 99 cases (44%), infection in 91 cases (40%), and component loosening in 26 cases (12%). In both groups, the most common cause of failure was polyethylene wear, which was followed by infection and component loosening. There were relatively lower infection rate and higher loosening rate in patients ≤ 55 years of age, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The mean interval between the operations was shorter in the ≥ 56 years of age group (5.3 years; range, 0.1 to 18 years) than in the younger patient group (8.6 years; range, 1 to 17 years), but there was no notable intergroup difference (p > 0.05). Conclusion. The main modes of failure after TKA in patients ≤ 55 years of age were polyethylene wear, infection and loosening, and there was no significant difference in the modes of failure after TKA between the two groups

Aims

Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA.

Aims

The goal was to evaluate tibiofemoral knee joint kinematics during stair descent, by simulating the full stair descent motion in vitro. The knee joint kinematics were evaluated for two types of knee implants: bi-cruciate retaining and bi-cruciate stabilized. It was hypothesized that the bi-cruciate retaining implant better approximates native kinematics.

Introduction. The Rotational alignment is an important factor for survival total knee Arthroplasty. Rotational malalignment causes knee pain, global instability, and wear of the polyethylene inlay. Also, the anterior cortex line was reported that more reliable and more easily identifiable landmark for correct tibial component alignment. The aims of the current study is to identify effect of inserting the tibial baseplate of using anterior cortex line landmark of TKA on stress/strain distributions within cortical bone and bone cement. Through the current study, final aim is to suggest an alternative position of tibia baseplate for reduction of TKA failures with surgical convenience. Materials and Method. A three-dimensional tibia FE model with TKA was generated based on a traditional TKA surgical guideline. Here, a commercialized TKA (LOSPA, Corentc, Korea) was considered corresponded to a patient specific tibia morphology. Tibia baseplate was positioned at anterior cortex line. Alternative two positions were also considered based on tibia tuberosity 1/3 line and tibia tuberosity end line known as a gold standard (Fig. 1-A). Loading and boundary conditions for the FE analysis were determined based on five activities of daily life of persons with TKA (Fig. 1-B). FE model was additionally validated comparing with an actual mechanical test. Results and Discussions. The, through comparing with strain distribution on the cortical bone measured from the actual mechanical test considering 0°, 30° 60°, 90°, 120° and 140° flexion with femoral rollback phenomenon (Fig. 2). Stress/strain on the cortical bone (medial region) of the proximal tibia for the baseplate positioned at anterior cortex line were a little better distributed than those at tibia tuberosity 1/3 line and tibia tuberosity end line although the stress/stain values were similar to each other (Fig. 3-A). Potential fracture risk of the bone cement for the baseplate positioned at anterior cortex line was lower than that at tibia tuberosity 1/3 line and tibia tuberosity end line, considering safety factor (N=3). Particularly, Potential fracture risk of the bone cement for the baseplate positioned at tibia tuberosity 1/3 line known as a gold standard was highest (over 20MPa for stair down activity) (Fig. 3-B). Conclusion. Our results suggested that anterior cortex line landmark was feasible to apply positioning method on the tibial baseplate in terms of mechanical characteristics which were compared to tibia tuberosity 1/3 line and tibia tuberosity end line known as a gold standard. This study may be valuable by suggesting for the first time an alternative baseplate position for reduction of TKA failures with surgical convenience

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is the preferred treatment for anterior medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) owing to the rapid postoperative recovery. However, the risk factors for UKA failure remain controversial.

Introduction. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been proposed as an implant material for femoral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) components. Potential clinical advantages of PEEK over standard cobalt chrome alloys include modulus of elasticity and subsequently reduced stress shielding potentially eliminating osteolysis, thermal conduction properties allowing for a more natural soft tissue environment, and reduced weight enabling quicker quadriceps recovery. Manufacturing advantages include reduced manufacturing and sterilization time, lower cost, and improved quality control. Currently, no PEEK TKA implants exist on the market. Therefore, evaluation of mechanical properties in a pre-clinical phase is required to minimize patient risk. The objectives of this study include evaluation of implant fixation and determination of the potential for reduced stress shielding using the PEEK femoral TKA component. Methods and Materials. Experimental and computational analysis was performed to evaluate the biomechanical response of the femoral component (Freedom Knee, Maxx Orthopedics Inc., Plymouth Meeting, PA; Figure 1). Fixation strength of CoCr and PEEK components was evaluated in pull-off tests of cemented femoral components on cellular polyurethane foam blocks (Sawbones, Vashon Island, WA). Subsequent testing investigated the cemented fixation using cadaveric distal femurs. The reconstructions were subjected to 500,000 cycles of the peak load occurring during a standardized gait cycle (ISO 14243-1). The change from CoCr to PEEK on implant fixation was studied through computational analysis of stress distributions in the cement, implant, and the cement-implant interface. Reconstructions were analyzed when subjected to standardized gait and demanding squat loads. To investigate potentially reduced stress shielding when using a PEEK component, paired cadaveric femurs were used to measure local bone strains using digital image correlation (DIC). First, standardized gait load was applied, then the left and right femurs were implanted with CoCr and PEEK components, respectively, and subjected to the same load. To verify the validity of the computational methodology, the intact and reconstructed femurs were replicated in FEA models, based on CT scans. Results. The cyclic load phase of the pull-off experiments revealed minimal migration for both CoCr and PEEK components, although after construct sectioning, debonding at the implant-cement interface was observed for the PEEK implants. During pull-off from Sawbones the ultimate failure load of the PEEK and CoCr components averaged 2552N and 3814N respectively. FEA simulations indicated that under more physiological loading, such as walking or squatting, the PEEK component had no increased risk of loss of fixation when compared to the CoCr component. Finally, the DIC experiments and FEA simulations confirmed closer resemblance of pre-operative strain distribution using the PEEK component. Discussion. The biomechanical consequences of changing implant material from CoCr to PEEK on implant fixation was studied using experimental and computational testing of cemented reconstructions. The results indicate that, although changes occur in implant fixation, the PEEK component had a fixation strength comparable to CoCr. The advantage of long term bone preservation, as the more compliant PEEK implant is able to better replicate the physiological loads occurring in the intact femur, may reduce stress shielding around the distal femur, a common clinical cause of TKA failure. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Aims

Micromotion of the polyethylene (PE) inlay may contribute to backside PE wear in addition to articulate wear of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) with tantalum beads in the PE inlay, we evaluated PE micromotion and its relationship to PE wear.

Bone loss creates a challenge to achieving fixation in revision TKR. Failure to achieve metaphyseal fixation is associated with failure in revision TKR. In the absence of cancellous bone for cement fixation, metaphyseal augments placed without cement have shown promise in achieving fixation. First generation augments were modular solid titanium sleeves attached to a taper at the base of the core implant. The introduction of tantalum with its favorable mechanical qualities markedly increased the utility and utilization of metaphyseal augments, with positive reports. These are either large augments where the bone is prepared with a burr, or later small cones placed with a cannulated broaching technique. Both have solved real problems, the first being limited by the reproducibility of bone preparation, and the second with excellent reproducibility of bone preparation but limited diameters. Other highly porous titanium surfaces have broadened the choices. Modern metaphyseal augments seek to add flexibility and options, specifically the use of offset stems. One tibial augment design features a reamed cone with a matching conical implant. Another option is based on an anatomic cone design with a single ream and a broached technique to optimise endosteal cortical bone contact. With each of these options, the augment can be placed wherever the remaining bone exists for fixation, even down to the metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction, and not limited to the area adjacent to the cut surface of bone. Once independent fixation is achieved, the intramedullary stem is cemented inside of it. Modern femoral augments are designed to sit either in the epiphyseal region, or the metaphysis. Cannulated reaming systems allow for preparation of complex asymmetrical double cone implants at the epiphysis. Metaphyseal implants are designed anatomically to sit deeper in the femoral bone, and can manage larger bony defects. Each system has benefits and compromises, and together they comprise increasingly powerful alternatives to manage extensive bone loss

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is reliable, durable, and reproducible in relieving pain and improving function in patients with arthritis of the knee joint. Cemented fixation is the gold standard with low rates of loosening and excellent survivorship in several large clinical series and joint registries. While cementless knee designs have been available for the past 3 decades, changing patient demographics (i.e. younger patients), improved implant designs and materials, and a shift towards TKA procedures being performed in ambulatory surgery centers has rekindled the debate of the role of cementless knee implants in TKA. The drive towards achieving biologic implant fixation in TKA is also driven by the successful transition from cemented hip implants to uncemented THA. However, new technologies and new techniques must be adopted as a result of an unmet need, significant improvement, and/or clinical advantage. Thus, the questions remain: 1) Why switch; and 2) Is cementless TKA more reliable, durable, or reproducible compared to cemented TKA?. There are several advantages to using cement during TKA. First, the technique can be universally applied to all cases without exception and without concerns for bone health or structure. Second, cement can mask imprecisions in bone cuts and is a remarkably durable grout. Third, cement allows for antibiotic delivery at the time surrounding surgery which has been shown in some instances to reduce the risk of subsequent infection. Finally, cement fixation has provided successful and durable fixation across various types knee designs, surface finishes, and articulations. On the other hand, cementless knee implants have had an inconsistent track record throughout history. While some have fared very well, others have exhibited early failures and high revision rates. Behery et al. reported on a series of 70 consecutive cases of cementless TKA matched with 70 cemented TKA cases based on implant design and demographics and found that cementless TKA was associated with a greater risk of aseptic loosening and revision surgery at 5 years follow up. Finally, to date, there has not been a randomised controlled clinical trial demonstrating superiority of cementless fixation compared to cemented fixation in TKA. Improvements in materials and designs have definitely made cementless TKA designs viable. However, concerns with added cost, reproducibility, and durability remain. Cement fixation has withstood the test of time and is not the main cause of TKA failure. Therefore, until there is significant data showing that cementless TKA is more durable, reliable, and reproducible compared to cemented TKA, the widespread use of these implants cannot be recommended

Aims

The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).