Register for the Forum

  • After registration you will receive an email to verify your email address. Once confirmed, your account will need activation by an administrator. Once activated you will receive an email to confirm.

Forum Rules

In addition to the terms of use (below) the following rules apply

  • Discussion and post of any product off-label usage is prohibited.
  • Prior to uploading any medical images or other patient personal data, the users must ensure they have obtained the necessary permissions or consent to share these images in the Forum without restrictions and any personal data identifying features have been removed or blurred.
  • Misleading or factually untrue statements or posts about products or discussed cases are prohibited.
  • Any obscene, vulgar, discriminating or abusive language in your post or comments is prohibited.
  • When discussing cases, to avoid misunderstandings, refrain from using misleading, ironic or humorous comments.

Best practice

  • To make case discussions meaningful to other Members, please provide relevant background information on patients or cases using anonymized patient data.
  • Please check whether a topic / question is already being discussed before starting a new thread.
  • Allow email notifications to receive updates on discussions you are participating in.

Click here for the terms of use

The Knee Care Press


Is it time you revisited cementless total knee arthroplasty?

Find out why some surgeons are aiming “for biological fixation in all future arthroplasty surgery.” 1

While initial designs and techniques of cementless TKR yielded unspectacular results and high early failure rates, subsequent improvements have led to more encouraging results, and implant survival of between 96% and 100% at 10 to 15-year follow-up.1

Furthermore, cemented TKR in younger and more demanding patients have demonstrated poor outcomes in many studies and registries.1 This is an important observation considering that the number of younger patients requiring knee arthroplasty is on the rise, and most patients needing the procedure could soon be under 65 years.1

In cemented TKR, the cement is stiffer than the bone, which causes microscopic failure over time, leading to aseptic loosening.1 By comparison, cementless fixation using porous materials with the same pore size and elasticity as trabecular bone, may help to prevent “a mismatch in stiffness and shear forces at the metal/bone interface, allowing better osteointegration.”1 This may help improve long-term fixation.

In addition, the emergence of robotics, better understanding of personalized implant alignment and faster surgery times have helped stimulate fresh interest in cementless TKR.1

One of the historic barriers to cementless TKR has been higher implant costs compared with cemented TKR. A recent study looking at operating time, implant, cement and cementing accessories suggested that cost should not be a barrier to cementless TKR.1 They found that the total cost of implanting cementless TKR were in fact lower than for cemented TKR.1 These findings have been corroborated by other studies in different countries, with local variations in healthcare costs.1

The authors acknowledge that changing practice takes time, and that more robust mid- to long-term data showing a clear advantage for cementless TKR may be necessary to accelerate this change.1 They note, however, that there is “clearly interest in this area and there is likely to be a dramatic growth in the use of cementless TKR during the next decade.”1

  1. Haddad, F. S. and Plastow, R. Editorial: Is it Time to Revisit Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty? BJJ. 2020; 102-B (8): 965-966.

Email a Colleague

  • An email will be sent to your colleague with a link to the forum.