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. Methods. A UK-based, three-round, online modified Delphi Expert Consensus Study was completed focusing on cementation technique in TKA. Experts were identified as having a minimum of five years’ consultant experience in the NHS and fulfilling any one of the following criteria: a ‘high volume’ knee arthroplasty practice (> 150 TKAs per annum) as identified from the National joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man; a senior author of at least five peer reviewed articles related to TKA in the previous five years; a surgeon who is named trainer for a post-certificate of comletion of training fellowship in TKA. Results. In total, 81 experts (round 1) and 80 experts (round 2 and 3) completed the Delphi Study. Four domains with a total of 24 statements were identified. 100% consensus was reached within the cement preparation, pressurization, and cement curing domains. 90% consensus was reached within the cement application domain. Consensus was not reached with only one statement regarding the handling of cement during initial application to the tibial and/or femoral bone surfaces. Conclusion. The Cementing Techniques In Knee Surgery (CeTIKS) Delphi consensus study presents comprehensive recommendations on the optimal technique for component cementing in TKA. Expert opinion has a place in the hierarchy of evidence and, until better evidence is available these recommendations should be considered when cementing a TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):682–688

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.

Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes. Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty. This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):48–57