Background Less than 1% of all primary TKAs are performed with an all-polyethylene tibial component, although recent studies indicate all-polyethylene tibial components are equal to or better than metal-backed ones. Questions/purposes We asked whether the metal-backed tibial component was clinically superior to the all-polyethylene tibial component in primary TKAs regarding revision rates and clinical functioning, and which modifying variables affected the revision rate.Methods We systematically reviewed the literature for clinical studies comparing all-polyethylene and metalbacked tibial components used in primary TKAs in terms of revision rates, clinical scores, and radiologic parameters including radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1557 unique references of which 26 articles were included, comprising more than 12,500 TKAs with 231 revisions for any reason. Results Meta-analysis showed no differences between the all-polyethylene and metal-backed components except for higher migration of the metal-backed components. Metaregression showed strong evidence that the all-polyethylene design has improved with time compared with the metalbacked design. Conclusions The all-polyethylene components were equivalent to metal-backed components regarding revision rates and clinical scores. The all-polyethylene components had better fixation (RSA) than the metal-backed components. The belief that metal-backed components are better than all-polyethylene ones seems to be based on studies from earlier TKAs. This might no longer be true for modern TKAs. Level of Evidence Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

ObjectivesThe Kaplan-Meier estimation is widely used in orthopedics to calculate the probability of revision surgery. Using data from a long-term follow-up study, we aimed to assess the amount of bias introduced by the Kaplan-Meier estimator in a competing risk setting.MethodsWe describe both the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the competing risk model, and explain why the competing risk model is a more appropriate approach to estimate the probability of revision surgery when patients die in a hip revision surgery cohort. In our study, a total of 62 acetabular revisions were performed. After a mean of 25 years, no patients were lost to follow-up, 13 patients had undergone revision surgery and 33 patients died of causes unrelated to their hip.ResultsThe Kaplan-Meier estimator overestimates the probability of revision surgery in our example by 3%, 11%, 28%, 32% and 60% at five, ten, 15, 20 and 25 years, respectively. As the cumulative incidence of the competing event increases over time, as does the amount of bias.ConclusionsIgnoring competing risks leads to biased estimations of the probability of revision surgery. In order to guide choosing the appropriate statistical analysis in future clinical studies, we propose a flowchart.

No abstract

Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR) was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of polyethylene inserts. However, no consistent clinical advantages of mobile- over fixed-bearing (FB) TKR have been found. In this study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome scores. Furthermore, we determined which modifying variables affected the outcome. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to collect clinical trials comparing MB and FB in primary TKR. The primary outcomes were revision rates for any reason, aseptic loosening and wear. Secondary outcomes included range of movement, Knee Society score (KSS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form 12 (SF-12) score and radiological parameters. Meta-regression techniques were used to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1827 publications, of which 41 studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising over 6000 TKRs. Meta-analyses showed no clinically relevant differences in terms of revision rates, clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between MB and FB TKRs. It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice.