Cemented vs. Cementless Fixation in Primary Knee Replacement: A Narrative Review

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of disability around the globe. Osteoarthritis is mainly considered a disease affecting the elderly. However, more and more studies show that sports overuse, obesity, or congenital disorders can initiate a pathologic cascade that leads to OA changes in the younger population. Nevertheless, OA mostly affects the elderly, and with increasing life expectancy, the disease will develop in more and more individuals. To date, the golden standard in the treatment of the end-stage of the disease is total joint replacement (TJR), which restores painless knee motion and function. One of the weakest elements in TJR is its bonding with the bone, which can be achieved by bonding material, such as poly methyl-methacrylate (PMMA), or by cementless fixation supported by bone ingrowth onto the endoprosthesis surface. Each technique has its advantages; however, the most important factor is the revision rate and survivor time. In the past, numerous articles were published regarding TJR revision rate, but no consensus has been established yet. In this review, we focused on a comparison of cemented and cementless total knee replacement surgeries. We introduced PICO rules, including population, intervention, comparison and outcomes of TJR in a PubMed search. We identified 783 articles published between 2010 and 2023, out of which we included 14 in our review. Our review reveals that there is no universally prescribed approach to fixate knee prostheses. The determination of the most suitable method necessitates an individualized decision-making process involving the active participation and informed consent of each patient.