Comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee replacement (TKA)
ESSKA Academy. Canata G. 11/08/19; 284391; epEKA-61 Topic: Joint Replacement
Dr. Gian Luigi Canata
Dr. Gian Luigi Canata
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You can access free regular educational content on the ESSKA Academy by registering as an 'ESSKA Academy User’ here

Access to Premium content is currently a membership benefit.

Click here to join ESSKA or renew your membership.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee replacement (TKA)

ePoster - epEKA-61

Topic: TKA

Canata G.L.1, Casale V.2
1Koelliker Hospital, Centre of Sport Traumatology, Torino, Italy, 2Koelliker Hospital, Torino, Italy

Introduction: When performing a TKA, the tibial component design and material may influence the postoperative outcomes.
Objectives: Initially, all-polyethylene tibial (APT) components were used; over the last decades, metal-backed tibial (MBT) components have been developed with satisfying results. The superiority of one option to the other is still debated.
Aims: A retrospective study was started in 2013 to compare the results of TKA with APT component versus a cemented MBT component and a uncemented MBT component.
Methods: 478 patients were operated between 2013 and 2017 by the same surgeon. Exclusion criteria were: patients older than 80 years; rheumatoid arthritis; septic postoperative complications; revision surgeries; posterior-stabilized TKA; unicompartimental knee arthroplasties.
This study enrolls 158 patients (159 implants), divided into three groups.
In Group A, 53 MBT components in cemented CR TKA mean age 71 years(r.50-79) were implanted. They were compared with 53 APT components in cemented CR TKA, mean age 73 years(r.55-79) (Group B) and 53 MBT components in uncemented CR TKA, mean age 68 years(r. 43-79). Patients of group B and C were selected in close temporal proximity to those of the group A.
Pre- and postoperative evaluation performed with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the postoperative Range Of Motion (ROM). The mean follow-up was 42 months (r.12-66). Statistics performed with the One-way Anova, the Mann- Whitney, and the Chi- Square tests.
Results: Group A: mean preoperative KOOS score 44,6 (SD 15,5), postoperative 88,5 (SD 16,3). Mean preoperative VAS score 7,6 (r.2-10), postoperative 0,9 (r.0-7). Mean postoperative ROM 0-0-134° (flexion r.100°-150°).
Group B: mean preoperative KOOS score 39,5 (SD 18,1), postoperative 85,5 (SD 19,2). Mean preoperative VAS score 7,6 (r.0-10), postoperative 1,3 (r. 0-9). Mean postoperative ROM 0-0-129° (flexion r.90°-140°).
Group C: mean preoperative KOOS score 40,9 (SD 20,1), postoperative 86,5 (SD 19,6). Mean preoperative VAS score 7,6(r.1-10), postoperative 1,2 (r.0-9). Mean postoperative ROM 0-0-132 (flexion r.90°-140°).
1 patient required revision surgery after a traumatic event. No statistically significant differences observed in postoperative outcomes (p>0.05).
Conclusions: APT or MBT components, both cemented and uncemented, are valid options for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis and provide similar clinical result.
Comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee replacement (TKA)

ePoster - epEKA-61

Topic: TKA

Canata G.L.1, Casale V.2
1Koelliker Hospital, Centre of Sport Traumatology, Torino, Italy, 2Koelliker Hospital, Torino, Italy

Introduction: When performing a TKA, the tibial component design and material may influence the postoperative outcomes.
Objectives: Initially, all-polyethylene tibial (APT) components were used; over the last decades, metal-backed tibial (MBT) components have been developed with satisfying results. The superiority of one option to the other is still debated.
Aims: A retrospective study was started in 2013 to compare the results of TKA with APT component versus a cemented MBT component and a uncemented MBT component.
Methods: 478 patients were operated between 2013 and 2017 by the same surgeon. Exclusion criteria were: patients older than 80 years; rheumatoid arthritis; septic postoperative complications; revision surgeries; posterior-stabilized TKA; unicompartimental knee arthroplasties.
This study enrolls 158 patients (159 implants), divided into three groups.
In Group A, 53 MBT components in cemented CR TKA mean age 71 years(r.50-79) were implanted. They were compared with 53 APT components in cemented CR TKA, mean age 73 years(r.55-79) (Group B) and 53 MBT components in uncemented CR TKA, mean age 68 years(r. 43-79). Patients of group B and C were selected in close temporal proximity to those of the group A.
Pre- and postoperative evaluation performed with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the postoperative Range Of Motion (ROM). The mean follow-up was 42 months (r.12-66). Statistics performed with the One-way Anova, the Mann- Whitney, and the Chi- Square tests.
Results: Group A: mean preoperative KOOS score 44,6 (SD 15,5), postoperative 88,5 (SD 16,3). Mean preoperative VAS score 7,6 (r.2-10), postoperative 0,9 (r.0-7). Mean postoperative ROM 0-0-134° (flexion r.100°-150°).
Group B: mean preoperative KOOS score 39,5 (SD 18,1), postoperative 85,5 (SD 19,2). Mean preoperative VAS score 7,6 (r.0-10), postoperative 1,3 (r. 0-9). Mean postoperative ROM 0-0-129° (flexion r.90°-140°).
Group C: mean preoperative KOOS score 40,9 (SD 20,1), postoperative 86,5 (SD 19,6). Mean preoperative VAS score 7,6(r.1-10), postoperative 1,2 (r.0-9). Mean postoperative ROM 0-0-132 (flexion r.90°-140°).
1 patient required revision surgery after a traumatic event. No statistically significant differences observed in postoperative outcomes (p>0.05).
Conclusions: APT or MBT components, both cemented and uncemented, are valid options for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis and provide similar clinical result.
Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies