A matched comparison of the patient-reported outcome measures of cemented and cementless total knee replacements, based on the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man and England's National PROM collection programme.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Medical Journals Sweden AB Country of Publication: Sweden NLM ID: 101231512 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1745-3682 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17453674 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Acta Orthop Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: 2022- : Uppsala, Sweden : Medical Journals Sweden AB
      Original Publication: Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK : Taylor & Francis, c2005-
    • Subject Terms:
      Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee*/methods ; Knee Prosthesis*; England/epidemiology ; Humans ; Middle Aged ; Northern Ireland/epidemiology ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Registries ; Treatment Outcome ; Wales
    • Abstract:
      Background and purpose - Total knee replacement (TKR) can be implanted with or without bone cement. It is currently unknown how the functional outcomes compare. Therefore, we compared the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) of both fixation methods. Patients and methods - We performed a propensitymatched comparison of 14,404 TKRs (7,202 cemented and 7,202 cementless) enrolled in the National Joint Registry and the English National PROMs collection programme. Subgroup analyses were performed in different age groups (1) < 55 years; (2) 55-64 years; (3) 65-74 years; (4) ≥ 75 years. Results - The 6-month postoperative Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was significantly (p < 0.001) higher for cemented TKR (35, SD 9.7) than cementless TKR (34, SD 9.9). The OKS was also significantly higher for the cemented TKR in all age groups, except the 55-64-year group. A significantly higher proportion of cemented TKRs had an excellent OKS (≥ 41) compared with cementless (32% vs. 28%, p < 0.001) and a lower proportion of poor (< 27) scores (19% vs. 22%, p = 0.001). This was also observed for all age subgroups. There were no significant differences in EQ-5D points gained postoperatively between the groups respectively (0.31 vs. 0.30, p = 0.1). Interpretation - Cemented TKRs had a greater proportion of excellent OKS scores and lower proportion of poor scores both overall and across all age groups. However, the absolute differences are small and below the minimally clinically important difference, making both fixation types acceptable. Currently the vast majority of TKRs are cemented and the results from this study suggest that this is appropriate.
    • References:
      J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jan;68(1):73-9. (PMID: 25441700)
      Stat Med. 2009 Nov 10;28(25):3083-107. (PMID: 19757444)
      Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Oct 17;10:CD006193. (PMID: 23076921)
      BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Jan 13;4:3. (PMID: 31938765)
      Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013 Jul 30;11:128. (PMID: 23895227)
      Bone Joint J. 2014 Mar;96-B(3):332-8. (PMID: 24589787)
      Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. (PMID: 10109801)
      J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Apr 15;102(8):644-653. (PMID: 32004190)
      J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Dec;90(12):1585-93. (PMID: 19043129)
      Biom J. 2009 Feb;51(1):171-84. (PMID: 19197955)
      Health Econ. 2010 Aug;19(8):886-905. (PMID: 20623685)
      BMJ Open. 2012 Feb 22;2(1):e000435. (PMID: 22357571)
      Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Oct;467(10):2606-12. (PMID: 19360453)
      BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Jul 9;21(1):448. (PMID: 32646453)
      Bone Joint J. 2014 Nov;96-B(11 Supple A):87-92. (PMID: 25381416)
      J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Dec;92(12):1628-31. (PMID: 21119165)
      J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Aug;89(8):1010-4. (PMID: 17785736)
      Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2014 Apr;14(2):221-33. (PMID: 24625040)
      J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Jul 3;101(13):1185-1192. (PMID: 31274720)
      Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Feb;476(2):245-258. (PMID: 29529653)
      Bone Joint J. 2013 Jan;95-B(1):45-51. (PMID: 23307672)
      Bone Joint J. 2013 Apr;95-B(4):486-92. (PMID: 23539700)
      J Arthroplasty. 2005 Dec;20(8):1037-41. (PMID: 16376260)
      EFORT Open Rev. 2020 Nov 13;5(11):793-798. (PMID: 33312706)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20220104 Date Completed: 20220426 Latest Revision: 20230418
    • Publication Date:
      20240829
    • Accession Number:
      PMC8815428
    • Accession Number:
      10.2340/17453674.2021.896
    • Accession Number:
      34981127