ePrints

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

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Meng Khaw, Professor Paul Gregg

Downloads

Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.

Abstract

We have carried out a long-term survival analysis of a prospective, randomised trial 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.

Publication metadata

Author(s): Khaw FM, Kirk LMG, Morris RW, Gregg PJ

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Year: 2002

Volume: 84

Issue: 5

Pages: 658-666

Print publication date: 01/01/2002

ISSN (print): 0301-620X

ISSN (electronic): 2044-5377

Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.84B5.12692

DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.84B5.12692

PubMed id: 12188480

Altmetrics

Share