The Open Orthopaedics Journal




ISSN: 1874-3250 ― Volume 13, 2019
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Midterm Results of Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Case Series



Radosław Stempin1, *, Kacper Stempin2, Wiesław Kaczmarek3, Julian Dutka4
1 Department of Orthopedic & Trauma Surgery, J. Strus Memorial (Multispecialistic City) Hospital, Poznan, Poland
2 Department of Orthopedic & Trauma Surgery, Westallgäu Clinic, Wangen, Germany
3 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Promienista Clinic, Poznan, Poland
4 Department of Orthopedic & Trauma Surgery, S. Zeromski Memorial Hospital Cracow, Poland

Abstract

Background:

There is an ongoing debate about whether to use cementless or cemented fixation for Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA).

Objective:

The study aimed to assess midterm survivorship of the Vanguard cementless system, and to demonstrate the utility of the Bone Hardness Test (BHT) for the selection of cementless fixation TKA.

Methods:

From September 2009 through November 2014, 123 total knee arthroplasties were completed, with cementless Vanguard Cruciate Retaining TKA in 110 knees (102 patients) and cemented Vanguard in 13 cases (12 patients). Implant fixation was based on intraoperative assessment of posterior cruciate ligament stability, bone quality, and BHT. All patients with a cementless Vanguard implant were eligible for this retrospective study. Preoperative and postoperative Knee Society Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were obtained. Standardized standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were taken.

Results:

Three patients (4 TKAs) were lost to follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 5.5 ± 1.4 years. All scores significantly improved postoperatively. No radiographic failures were observed. Five-year implant survival, with revision of any component for any reason as an endpoint, was 97.2% (95% confidence interval, 91.7 - 99.1%). Five-year survival with revision for aseptic loosening was 100%. Only one knee required revision due to an isolated unrelated bearing exchange, and two additional knees required secondary resurfacing of the patella for retropatellar pain.

Conclusion:

Good midterm results were obtained with the cementless Vanguard Cruciate Retaining TKA for the treatment of osteoarthritis. The Bone Hardness Test appears to be an effective way to determine the selection of cementless TKA.

Keywords: Osteoarthritis knee, Cementless total knee arthroplasty, Fixation, Bone matrix quality, Bone hardness test, Biocompatible coated materials.


Article Information


Identifiers and Pagination:

Year: 2018
Volume: 12
First Page: 196
Last Page: 202
Publisher Id: TOORTHJ-12-196
DOI: 10.2174/1874325001812010196

Article History:

Received Date: 1/5/2018
Revision Received Date: 25/5/2018
Acceptance Date: 25/5/2018
Electronic publication date: 14/6/2018
Collection year: 2018

Article Metrics:

CrossRef Citations:
0

Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 2129
Abstract HTML Views: 1140
PDF Downloads: 476
ePub Downloads: 383
Total Views/Downloads: 4128

Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 1089
Abstract HTML Views: 691
PDF Downloads: 333
ePub Downloads: 252
Total Views/Downloads: 2365
Geographical View

© 2018 Stempin et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


* Address correspondence to this author at the Department of Orthopedic & Trauma Surgery, J. Strus Memorial (Multispecialistic City) Hospital, ul. Szwajcarska 3, 61-285 Poznań, Poland; Tel: + 48 601 727 982; E-mail: rstempin365@gmail.com





1. INTRODUCTION

Ever since the advent of cementless systems for Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), there has been discussion over when to choose this newer modality over conventional cemented fixation for TKA [1Bouras T, Bitas V, Fennema P, Korovessis P. Good long-term results following cementless TKA with a titanium plasma coating. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25(9): 2801-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3769-3] [PMID: 26334884]
-4Mont MA, Pivec R, Issa K, Kapadia BH, Maheshwari A, Harwin SF. Long-term implant survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Knee Surg 2014; 27(5): 369-76.
[PMID: 24318196]
]. Cemented systems have created issues with cement-bone interface degradation and implant loosening, so the cementless TKA was designed to promote osseointegration and offer long-term fixation – especially in young and active patients [1Bouras T, Bitas V, Fennema P, Korovessis P. Good long-term results following cementless TKA with a titanium plasma coating. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25(9): 2801-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3769-3] [PMID: 26334884]
, 5Brown TE, Harper BL, Bjorgul K. Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36(5): 380-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130426-10] [PMID: 23672897]
].

However, osteoconductive coatings reduce micromotions and improve osseointegration, both in young patients and in patients over the age of 75, without any significant differences between these age groups. The results of cementless TKA in elderly patients are clinically comparable with those in younger patients, with good outcome reported at five years in both age groups [6Dixon P, Parish EN, Chan B, Chitnavis J, Cross MJ. Hydroxyapatite-coated, cementless total knee replacement in patients aged 75 years and over. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86(2): 200-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86B2.14341] [PMID: 15046433]
].

Other reported advantages of cementless TKA are that it is potentially time-saving during surgical implantation; it reduces ischemia time; and allows an easier, more bone-preserving, revision in the event of failure [7Matassi F, Carulli C, Civinini R, Innocenti M. Cemented versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Joints 2014; 1(3): 121-5.
[PMID: 25606521]
]. It has been argued that cementless knee implants are more expensive than cemented, but their shorter operative time allows for reduced costs associated with surgery [8Kamath AF, Lee GC, Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Garino JP, Israelite CL. Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(8): 1390-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.030] [PMID: 21872424]
].

There is a growing number of patients younger than 65 undergoing TKA, and there is concern that primary implants will not last for a lifetime, especially in these younger and more active patients [9Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467(10): 2606-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6] [PMID: 19360453]
].

The choice between cemented and cementless TKA is not straightforward, and the selection criteria is widely debated in the literature [10Miller AJ, Stimac JD, Smith LS, Feher AW, Yakkanti MR, Malkani AL. Results of cemented vs cementless primary total knee arthroplasty using the same implant design. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(4): 1089-93.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.048] [PMID: 29275115]
-12Franceschetti E, Torre G, Palumbo A, et al. No difference between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty in young patients: A review of the evidence. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25(6): 1749-56.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4519-5] [PMID: 28332044]
]. Good bone matrix quality seems to be critical to minimize the risk of migration and aseptic loosening of the tibial component. In unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA), the Bone Hardness Test (BHT) has been proposed as a simple and useful way to assess the eligibility of patients for cementless unicompartmental replacement [13Stempin R, Kaczmarek W, Stempin K, Dutka J. Midterm results of cementless and cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile meniscal bearing: A prospective cohort study. Open Orthop J 2017; 11: 1173-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011173] [PMID: 29290853]
]. The first author of this paper applied the same principles for the present study, which was designed to assess midterm outcome with the cementless Vanguard TKA, applying the BHT as a selection criterion for patient eligibility.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

At our clinic, 123 total knee arthroplasties were completed, implanting the cementless Vanguard Cruciate Retaining TKA (Zimmer Biomet, Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) in 110 knees (102 patients) and the cemented version of the Vanguard in 13 knees (12 patients), between September 2009 and November 2014. The choice of cementless implant was based on intraoperative assessment of posterior cruciate ligament stability, visual inspection of bone quality, and on the BHT, which was determined by exerting pressure with a thumb or index finger on the surface of the tibial bone following resection of the tibia. If the resected surface deflected when pressure was applied to the bone (i.e., if the thumb delved into the bone tissue), the bone hardness was deemed insufficient for primary stability of the cementless implant, and a cemented TKA implant was used.

Both the cementless femoral and the cementless tibial components are constructed of a chromium-cobalt alloy covered with a porous, pure titanium plasma spray coating to promote osseointegration. The femoral component has an extended trochlear groove that allows the patella to maintain contact with the femoral component during flexion. No updates to the design have been made since the system was introduced to our clinic.

We conducted a retrospective study of the cementless Vanguard system in a consecutive series of patients. Osteoarthritis was the primary indication for TKA in all patients, comprising 82 (80.4%) females and 20 (19.6%) males with an average age of 72.7 ±7.1 (range, 59 - 81) years.

For the surgery, all patients were placed in a supine position, and most patients (n = 97) received a spinal anesthesia, with only 5 patients undergoing general anesthesia. A tourniquet and an anteromedial parapatellar approach was used in all cases by a single, experienced surgeon (R.S.). The bone resections were performed accurately in order to avoid any gaps between the bone substrate and the prosthetic components. The sclerotic surfaces of the bones were removed completely. Minimal tibia bone was resected, since the strength of cancellous bone decreases with increasing depth of resection [14Hvid I. Trabecular bone strength at the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 227(227): 210-21.
[PMID: 3276421]
, 15Ohman C, Zwierzak I, Baleani M, Viceconti M. Human bone hardness seems to depend on tissue type but not on anatomical site in the long bones of an old subject. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2013; 227(2): 200-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954411912459424] [PMID: 23513991]
].

Patients used perioperative prophylactic antibiotic therapy for three days. All patients received thrombosis prophylaxis with fraxiparine for 2 to 4 weeks, depending on the comorbidity status of the patient. On the first postoperative day, patients ambulated with full weight bearing with the assistance of a walker. Postoperative pain management consisted of morphine, tramadol, paracetamol, diclofenac sodium, pyralginum, and ketoprofen (IM). In the first few days after surgery, physical therapy was prescribed. On average, patients were discharged from the hospital on the fourth postoperative day.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation was completed preoperatively and at final follow-up. Functional assessment was determined by the Knee Society Score (KSS) [16Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 248(248): 13-4.
[PMID: 2805470]
] and with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score [17Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15(12): 1833-40.
[PMID: 3068365]
]. Standardized standing anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were taken and analyzed for periprosthetic Radiolucent Lines (RLLs), evidence of component subsidence, focal osteolysis, and polyethylene wear. RLL measuring greater than 1mm in all zones or a change in implant location constituted a loss of biological fixation [1Bouras T, Bitas V, Fennema P, Korovessis P. Good long-term results following cementless TKA with a titanium plasma coating. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25(9): 2801-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3769-3] [PMID: 26334884]
]. Definitive biological fixation was noted upon radiological evidence of the absence of RLLs between the implant and the bone at all radiographic zones of both prosthetic components [18Cross MJ, Parish EN. A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: Prospective analysis of 1000 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87(8): 1073-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B8.15772] [PMID: 16049241]
].

In accordance with Polish law, ethics committee approval was not obtained, since the study was observational and did not involve changes to standard clinical practices.

2.1. Statistical Analysis

For all measured outcomes reported in the study results, all values were calculated as mean ± SD. Kaplan Meier analysis, with calculation of 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) was employed for survival analysis. Endpoints of interest included revision of any component for any reason and revision of any component for aseptic loosening.

3. RESULTS

Two patients (2 TKAs) died from unrelated causes during the course of the study and one patient (2 TKAs) was lost to follow-up. Hence, 106 knees (99 patients), were available for clinical follow-up assessment. The mean follow-up time was 5.5 ± 1.4 (range, 3.2 – 8.0) years.

Overall, one knee (0.9%) required revision for an isolated bearing exchange. A secondary resurfacing of the patella was performed in two knees (1.9%) for retropatellar pain. An additional patient experienced a traumatic tibial fracture, but was not operated on due to a poor general health condition. His pre-accident scores were comparable to the overall population mean.

Five-year implant survival, with revision of any component for any reason as the endpoint of interest, was 97.2% (95% CI, 91.7 - 99.1%) (Fig. 1). Five-year survival with revision for aseptic loosening as endpoint of interest was 100%.

Fig. (1)
Implant survival with revision for any cause as endpoint of interest.


The mean KSS clinical score increased from 36 ± 12 preoperatively to 88 ± 10 at follow-up evaluation, and the function score improved from 35 ± 9 to 74 ± 13. The mean WOMAC score increased from 38 ± 2 preoperatively to 78 ± 6 at follow-up assessment. With the exception of the previously mentioned patients who required secondary patella resurfacing, no patients with anterior knee pain in the non-resurfaced patella were observed. There were no patients with subluxation or dislocation of the patella.

Radiographic assessment could be performed in 97 knees. We did not observe any radiographic failures on the tibia or femur at follow-up. In 9 out of 97 knees, RLLs were observed. RLLs were small (< 1 mm), incomplete, and non-progressive in all cases (Fig. 2).

Fig. (2)
Anteroposterior (left) and lateral (right) radiographs showing the cementless Vanguard in a 78-year-old female with favourable clinical outcome 5 years postoperatively. No radiolucent lines are visible.


Additionally, no signs of polyethylene wear, subsidence of the tibial component or osteolysis of either the tibia or femur were observed. Osseointegration of both components was observed radiologically in all evaluated knees.

4. DISCUSSION

The Vanguard primary cementless, posterior cruciate-retaining TKA system without patella resurfacing yielded excellent clinical results with high survival in this retrospective clinical study. We noted 100% implant survival with implant loosening as the endpoint of interest. Two cases needed secondary patellofemoral replacement, but a revision of the well-fixed femoral and tibial components was not required. Preoperative bone quality has an important impact on the cementless fixation. A significant association between preoperative level of Bone Mineral Density (BMD) measured in the proximal tibia and migration of the tibial component has been established [19Li MG, Nilsson KG. The effect of the preoperative bone quality on the fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(6): 744-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.6617] [PMID: 11021450]
]. However, the objective measurement of the average BMD in the medial and lateral condyles in order to objectively determine the quality of the bone matrix is expensive compared with the BHT. Our simple assessment of bone substrate has resulted in good primary and secondary stabilization of cementless implants, which is supported by the fact that in the present series no subsidence and lift-off was seen.

Our study results are comparable to other cementless TKA systems, which reported similar survival rates [1Bouras T, Bitas V, Fennema P, Korovessis P. Good long-term results following cementless TKA with a titanium plasma coating. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25(9): 2801-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3769-3] [PMID: 26334884]
, 18Cross MJ, Parish EN. A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: Prospective analysis of 1000 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87(8): 1073-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B8.15772] [PMID: 16049241]
, 20Epinette JA, Manley MT. Hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: Clinical experience at 10 to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89(1): 34-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B1.17864] [PMID: 17259413]
, 21Hardeman F, Vandenneucker H, Van Lauwe J, Bellemans J. Cementless total knee arthroplasty with Profix: A 8- to 10-year follow-up study. Knee 2006; 13(6): 419-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2006.06.007] [PMID: 17064905]
]. Results are also in line with studies performed on the cemented Vanguard. Faris et al reported a 10-year survival rate of 98.4% for the cemented Vanguard with revision for any reason as endpoint of interest [22Faris PM, Ritter MA, Davis KE, Priscu HM. Ten-year outcome comparison of the anatomical Graduated component and vanguard total knee arthroplasty systems. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(10): 1733-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.042] [PMID: 26071251]
]. Similarly, Kievit et al. reported a 6-year survival of 96.5% with revision for any reason as endpoint of interest, with secondary resurfacing of the patella performed in 1.7% of the patients [23Kievit AJ, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN, van Geenen RC. Early experience with the Vanguard complete total knee system: 2-7 years of follow-up and risk factors for revision. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(2): 348-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.018] [PMID: 23773964]
].

A review of revision surgeries revealed the indications for the secondary procedures. In a meta-analysis by Pilling et al, 48 (6%) of 792 knees in the non-resurfacing group required surgical re-intervention because of anterior knee pain [24Pilling RW, Moulder E, Allgar V, Messner J, Sun Z, Mohsen A. Patellar resurfacing in primary total knee replacement: A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94(24): 2270-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01257] [PMID: 23318618]
]. In that report, the randomized controlled trials had short follow-up, with the latest follow-up often being five years after the primary procedure. As in our study, the percentage of revision surgeries was lower (2%), and it was assumed that these revisions were likely due to the natural progression of patellofemoral arthritis rather than a factor such as trochlear groove design.

While cemented fixation remains the gold standard for many, there is an increased interest in uncemented fixation in TKA [25Ranawat CS, Meftah M, Windsor EN, Ranawat AS. Cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty: down the boulevard of broken dreams - affirms. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94(11)(Suppl. A): 82-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30826] [PMID: 23118389]
]. Studies support the choice of both implants. While a meta-analysis published by Gandhi et al found significantly higher implant survival for cemented compared with cementless TKA (with follow-up time ranging from 2 to 11 years) [26Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Mahomed NN. Survival and clinical function of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total knee replacement: A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91(7): 889-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21702] [PMID: 19567852]
], a review by Mont et al concluded that cementless and cemented TKA had similar implant survivorship (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-2.00). At 10 years follow-up, the mean survival rate for cementless TKA was 95.6%, compared with 95.3% for cemented TKA [4Mont MA, Pivec R, Issa K, Kapadia BH, Maheshwari A, Harwin SF. Long-term implant survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Knee Surg 2014; 27(5): 369-76.
[PMID: 24318196]
].

Advanced design developments have contributed to favorable results with cementless TKA [27Cossetto DJ, Gouda AD. Uncemented tibial fixation total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(1): 41-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.12.008] [PMID: 20334998]
]. Using our study system, the femoral and tibial components had excellent radiologic results, and none of the 120 originally implanted knees showed loosening after more than 5 years. The validity of our study results is strengthened by the low rate of attrition of 1.6%.

A limitation of the present study is uncontrolled design; a randomized clinical study comparing cemented and cemented Vanguard would have been informative. Another study limitation was that we have not been able to provide scientific evidence for the merit of the BHT. More studies are warranted before this test can be generally recommended for use in clinical practice.

Our study supports the success of cementless components and Bone Hardness Test for primary TKA by orthopedic surgeons treating patients with osteoarthritis. As components and techniques continue to advance, cementless fixation is progressing towards the goal of becoming the new gold standard for TKA.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study demonstrates favorable outcome for the cementless Vanguard Cruciate Retaining TKA in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Our study results show good midterm survival of the system which is consistent with the results for other cementless TKA systems. In addition, the Bone Hardness Test may be a simple and useful way of assessing eligibility for cementless TKA. Long-term studies with larger sample sizes are warranted.

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

Not applicable

HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

No animals/humans were used for studies that are the basis of this research.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dr. Günter Sinz, Hauptplatz 2, 7423 Pinkafeld, Austria, for sharing his experience with the Bone Hardness Test as selection criterion for cementless TKA.

REFERENCES

[1] Bouras T, Bitas V, Fennema P, Korovessis P. Good long-term results following cementless TKA with a titanium plasma coating. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25(9): 2801-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3769-3] [PMID: 26334884]
[2] Cherian JJ, Banerjee S, Kapadia BH, Jauregui JJ, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: A review. J Knee Surg 2014; 27(3): 193-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1374811] [PMID: 24764231]
[3] Lass R, Kubista B, Holinka J, et al. Comparison of cementless and hybrid cemented total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36(4): e420-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130327-16] [PMID: 23590780]
[4] Mont MA, Pivec R, Issa K, Kapadia BH, Maheshwari A, Harwin SF. Long-term implant survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. J Knee Surg 2014; 27(5): 369-76.
[PMID: 24318196]
[5] Brown TE, Harper BL, Bjorgul K. Comparison of cemented and uncemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36(5): 380-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130426-10] [PMID: 23672897]
[6] Dixon P, Parish EN, Chan B, Chitnavis J, Cross MJ. Hydroxyapatite-coated, cementless total knee replacement in patients aged 75 years and over. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86(2): 200-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86B2.14341] [PMID: 15046433]
[7] Matassi F, Carulli C, Civinini R, Innocenti M. Cemented versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Joints 2014; 1(3): 121-5.
[PMID: 25606521]
[8] Kamath AF, Lee GC, Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Garino JP, Israelite CL. Prospective results of uncemented tantalum monoblock tibia in total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 55 years. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(8): 1390-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.030] [PMID: 21872424]
[9] Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467(10): 2606-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6] [PMID: 19360453]
[10] Miller AJ, Stimac JD, Smith LS, Feher AW, Yakkanti MR, Malkani AL. Results of cemented vs cementless primary total knee arthroplasty using the same implant design. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(4): 1089-93.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.048] [PMID: 29275115]
[11] Prudhon JL, Verdier R. Cemented or cementless total knee arthroplasty? - Comparative results of 200 cases at a minimum follow-up of 11 years. SICOT J 2017; 3: 70.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2017046] [PMID: 29232186]
[12] Franceschetti E, Torre G, Palumbo A, et al. No difference between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty in young patients: A review of the evidence. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25(6): 1749-56.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4519-5] [PMID: 28332044]
[13] Stempin R, Kaczmarek W, Stempin K, Dutka J. Midterm results of cementless and cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile meniscal bearing: A prospective cohort study. Open Orthop J 2017; 11: 1173-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011173] [PMID: 29290853]
[14] Hvid I. Trabecular bone strength at the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; 227(227): 210-21.
[PMID: 3276421]
[15] Ohman C, Zwierzak I, Baleani M, Viceconti M. Human bone hardness seems to depend on tissue type but not on anatomical site in the long bones of an old subject. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2013; 227(2): 200-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0954411912459424] [PMID: 23513991]
[16] Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 248(248): 13-4.
[PMID: 2805470]
[17] Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15(12): 1833-40.
[PMID: 3068365]
[18] Cross MJ, Parish EN. A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: Prospective analysis of 1000 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87(8): 1073-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B8.15772] [PMID: 16049241]
[19] Li MG, Nilsson KG. The effect of the preoperative bone quality on the fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(6): 744-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.6617] [PMID: 11021450]
[20] Epinette JA, Manley MT. Hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: Clinical experience at 10 to 15 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89(1): 34-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B1.17864] [PMID: 17259413]
[21] Hardeman F, Vandenneucker H, Van Lauwe J, Bellemans J. Cementless total knee arthroplasty with Profix: A 8- to 10-year follow-up study. Knee 2006; 13(6): 419-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2006.06.007] [PMID: 17064905]
[22] Faris PM, Ritter MA, Davis KE, Priscu HM. Ten-year outcome comparison of the anatomical Graduated component and vanguard total knee arthroplasty systems. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(10): 1733-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.042] [PMID: 26071251]
[23] Kievit AJ, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Sierevelt IN, van Dijk CN, van Geenen RC. Early experience with the Vanguard complete total knee system: 2-7 years of follow-up and risk factors for revision. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(2): 348-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.018] [PMID: 23773964]
[24] Pilling RW, Moulder E, Allgar V, Messner J, Sun Z, Mohsen A. Patellar resurfacing in primary total knee replacement: A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94(24): 2270-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01257] [PMID: 23318618]
[25] Ranawat CS, Meftah M, Windsor EN, Ranawat AS. Cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty: down the boulevard of broken dreams - affirms. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94(11)(Suppl. A): 82-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B11.30826] [PMID: 23118389]
[26] Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Mahomed NN. Survival and clinical function of cemented and uncemented prostheses in total knee replacement: A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91(7): 889-95.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21702] [PMID: 19567852]
[27] Cossetto DJ, Gouda AD. Uncemented tibial fixation total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(1): 41-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2009.12.008] [PMID: 20334998]

Endorsements



"Open access will revolutionize 21st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."


Daniel Pesut
(Indiana University School of Nursing, USA)

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."


Jacques Descotes
(Centre Antipoison-Centre de Pharmacovigilance, France)

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."


Patrice Talaga
(UCB S.A., Belgium)

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."


Jeffrey M. Weinberg
(St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, USA)

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."


Debomoy K. Lahiri
(Indiana University School of Medicine, USA)

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."


Robert Looney
(Naval Postgraduate School, USA)

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."


Richard Reithinger
(Westat, USA)

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."


J. Ferwerda
(University of Oxford, UK)

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."


Sean L. Kitson
(Almac Sciences, Northern Ireland)

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."


Hubert Wolterbeek
(Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."


Alessandro Laviano
(Sapienza - University of Rome, Italy)

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."


Philippe Hernigou
(Paris University, France)

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."


Fidel Toldrá
(Instituto de Agroquimica y Tecnologia de Alimentos, Spain)

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."


M. Bendandi
(University Clinic of Navarre, Spain)

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."


Peter Chiba
(University of Vienna, Austria)

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."


Jaime Sampaio
(University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal)

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."


Eduardo A. Castro
(INIFTA, Argentina)

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."


Kenji Hashimoto
(Chiba University, Japan)

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."


Daniel Shek
(Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong)

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."


Jih Ru Hwu
(National Central University, Taiwan)


Browse Contents




Webmaster Contact: info@benthamopen.net
Copyright © 2019 Bentham Open