Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2025
Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
Published on: January 24, 2018
Survivorship of Modern Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty: Analysis From the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry
Aaron G Chen1, Olawale A Sogbein1, Richard W McCalden1
1Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London Health Sciences Centre, University Hospital, London, Ontario, Canada.
Background:
Cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising in popularity. The literature supporting its use over cemented TKA remains sparse. Using the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR), we sought to investigate cementless versus cemented fixation in modern primary TKA and (1) determine whether there is an overall difference in revision by fixation, (2) perform a subanalysis of the most-commonly used cementless TKA brand in Canada, and (3) identify the reasons for revision.
Methods:
The CJRR data was used to analyze TKA designs with cemented and cementless versions. Revision risk is reported as all-cause cumulative percent revision (CPR). Reasons for revision were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to report adjusted hazard ratios (HR) controlling for age, sex, patella resurfacing, and bearing constraints. We included 202,880 primary TKAs performed between 2012 and 2021. Of those, 9,163 (4.5%) were cementless.
Results:
The CPR at 8 years was 4.49% for cementless and 3.14% for cemented implants. After adjusting for confounders, we did not detect a difference in revision risk overall (HR 0.87 [95% CI (confidence interval) 0.73 to 1.04], P = 0.128). However, the most commonly used cementless TKA brand demonstrated a CPR of 1.95% compared to 2.19% for its cemented version at 4 years. Furthermore, we detected a significantly lower revision risk compared to its cemented version after adjusting for confounders (HR 0.66 [95% CI 0.51 to 0.85], P = 0.001). The 4 most common reasons for revision in both groups were the following: (1) infection, (2) instability, (3) aseptic loosening, and (4) pain of unknown origin.
Conclusions:
Using CJRR data adjusted for confounding factors, no difference in revision risk was detected between cemented and cementless implants overall. However, for the most common brand of cementless TKA used in Canada, there was a lower risk of revision than its corresponding cemented version. The reasons for revision were similar.
