Knee replacement survival rates with all- polyethylene or metal-backed tibial components – what do the Registries say?
Background: With increasing numbers of primary total knee arthroplasty and ongoing economic pressure the use of all-polyethylene tibial components maybe an alternative option to achieve cost savings without an adverse impact on outcomes
Methods: A search of all publically available joint replacement registry data investigated the performance of all-polyethylene tibial components compared to metal backed modular tibial components.
Results: All-polyethylene tibial components were used in 0.47% of Australian and 1.2% of England and Wales national register reported knees. 2.6% of Norwegian fixed platform knees were all-polyethylene. Large institutional registers from the United States of America reported usage rates of 4%, 8.3% and 8.9%. Revision rates for all-polyethylene implants were comparable or better than modular components in all registries. Only one registry had sufficient data on patients aged less than 65 years who report a hazard ratio of 0.26.
Conclusion: In patients 65 years and older all polyethylene tibial components have similar rates of revision compared to metal backed. There is insufficient data in younger patients.
Ducheyne, P., A. Kagan, 2nd, and J.A. Lacey, Failure of total knee arthroplasty due to loosening and deformation of the tibial component. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1978. 60(3): p. 384-91.
Evanski, P.M., et al., UCI knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1976(120): p. 33-8.
Freeman, M.A., et al., Knee arthroplasty at the London Hospital. 1975-1984. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1986(205): p. 12-20.
Bartel, D.L., V.L. Bicknell, and T.M. Wright, The effect of conformity, thickness, and material on stresses in ultra-high molecular weight components for total joint replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1986. 68(7): p. 1041-51.
Bartel, D.L., et al., Performance of the tibial component in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 1982. 64(7): p. 1026-33.
Murase, K., et al., An analysis of tibial component design in total knee arthroplasty. J Biomech, 1983. 16(1): p. 13-22.
Gioe, T.J. and A.V. Maheshwari, The all-polyethylene tibial component in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2010. 92(2): p. 478-87.
Muller, S.D., et al., Should we reconsider all-polyethylene tibial implants in total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2006. 88(12): p. 1596-602.
Browne, J.A., et al., All-polyethylene tibial components in modern total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg, 2011. 19(9): p. 527-35.
Font-Rodriguez, D.E., G.R. Scuderi, and J.N. Insall, Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1997(345): p. 79-86.
Forster, M.C., P. Kothari, and P.W. Howard, Minimum 5-year follow-up and radiologic analysis of the all-polyethylene tibial component of the Kinemax Plus system. J Arthroplasty, 2002. 17(2): p. 196-200.
Pagnano, M.W., B.A. Levy, and D.J. Berry, Cemented all polyethylene tibial components in patients age 75 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 1999(367): p. 73-80.
Pomeroy, D.L., et al., Results of all-polyethylene tibial components as a cost-saving technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2000(380): p. 140-3.
Rodriguez, J.A., et al., Metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2001(392): p. 174-83.
Gioe, T.J., et al., Excellent survival of all-polyethylene tibial components in a community joint registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2007. 464: p. 88-92.
(AOANJRR), A.O.A.N.J.R.R., Annual Report 2013. 2013, Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry.
Healy, W.L., et al., Impact of cost reduction programs on short-term patient outcome and hospital cost of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2002. 84-A(3): p. 348-53.
Kim, S., Changes in surgical loads and economic burden of hip and knee replacements in the US: 1997-2004. Arthritis Rheum, 2008. 59(4): p. 481-8.
Kurtz, S., et al., Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2007. 89(4): p. 780-5.
(CJRR), C.J.R.R., Hip and Knee Replacements in Canada: Canadian Joint Replacement Registry 2013 Annual Report. 2013, Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR).
Registry, T.N.Z.J., The New Zealand Joint Registry: Thirteen year Report. 2012, The New Zealand Joint Registry.
Project, S.A., Scottish Arthroplasty Project: Biennial Report 2012. 2012, Scottish Arthroplasty Project.
Implants, R.o.O.P., REPORT of R.I.P.O. - Regional Register of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implantology. 2011, IPO - Register of Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants.
(SKAR), S.K.A.R., Annual Report 2012. 2012, Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR).
Register, T.N.A., The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: Report June 2010. 2010, The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
(NJR), N.J.R., 10th Annual Report 2013. 2013, National Joint Registry (NJR).
Rand, J.A., et al., Factors affecting the durability of primary total knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2003. 85-A(2): p. 259-65.
Mohan, V., et al. All-Polyethylene Tibial Component Have a Lower Risk of Revision: An Analysis of 27,657 Primary Total Knee Arthroplasties. in Proceedings of the 2013 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting. 2013. Chicago, IL.
L’Insalata, J.L., S.H. Stern, and J.N. Insall, Total knee arthroplasty in elderly patients. Comparison of tibial component designs. J Arthroplasty, 1992. 7(3): p. 261-6.
Cheng, T., G. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene tibial components in primary total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop, 2011. 82(5): p. 589-95.
Voigt, J. and M. Mosier, Cemented all-polyethylene and metal-backed polyethylene tibial components used for primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials involving 1798 primary total knee implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011. 93(19): p. 1790-8.
Meftah, M., et al., All-polyethylene tibial implant in young, active patients a concise follow-up, 10 to 18 years. J Arthroplasty, 2012. 27(1): p. 10-4.
Ranawat, A.S., et al., Experience with an all-polyethylene total knee arthroplasty in younger, active patients with follow-up from 2 to 11 years. J Arthroplasty, 2005. 20(7 Suppl 3): p. 7-11.
Babis, G.C., R.T. Trousdale, and B.F. Morrey, The effectiveness of isolated tibial insert exchange in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2002. 84-A(1): p. 64-8.
Engh, G.A., L.M. Koralewicz, and T.R. Pereles, Clinical results of modular polyethylene insert exchange with retention of total knee arthroplasty components. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2000. 82(4): p. 516-23.
Engh, G.A., et al., In vivo deterioration of tibial baseplate locking mechanisms in contemporary modular total knee components. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2001. 83-A(11): p. 1660-5.
Zotti, M.G., D.G. Campbell, and R. Woodman, Detection of periprosthetic osteolysis around total knee arthroplasties an in vitro study. J Arthroplasty, 2012. 27(2): p. 317-22.
Grewal, R., M.G. Rimmer, and M.A. Freeman, Early migration of prostheses related to long-term survivorship. Comparison of tibial components in knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1992. 74(2): p. 239-42.
Ryd, L., et al., Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis as a predictor of mechanical loosening of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 1995. 77(3): p. 377-83.
Adalberth, G., et al., Low-conforming all-polyethylene tibial component not inferior to metal-backed component in cemented total knee arthroplasty: prospective, randomized radiostereometric analysis study of the AGC total knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty, 2000. 15(6): p. 783-92.
Adalberth, G., et al., All-polyethylene versus metal-backed and stemmed tibial components in cemented total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomised RSA study. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2001. 83(6): p. 825-31.
Hyldahl, H., et al., All-polyethylene vs. metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 2. Completely cemented components: MB not superior to AP components. Acta Orthop, 2005. 76(6): p. 778-84.
Hyldahl, H., et al., All-polyethylene vs. metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 1. Horizontally cemented components: AP better fixated than MB. Acta Orthop, 2005. 76(6): p. 769-77.
Norgren, B., T. Dalen, and K.G. Nilsson, All-poly tibial component better than metal-backed: a randomized RSA study. Knee, 2004. 11(3): p. 189-96.
Blumenfeld, T.J. and R.D. Scott, The role of the cemented all-polyethylene tibial component in total knee replacement: a 30-year patient follow-up and review of the literature. Knee, 2010. 17(6): p. 412-6.
Dalury, D.F., et al., Midterm survival of a contemporary modular total knee replacement: a multicentre study of 1970 knees. J Bone Joint Surg Br, 2008. 90(12): p. 1594-6.
Vessely, M.B., et al., The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: Long-term survivorship and failure modes of 1000 cemented condylar total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2006. 452: p. 28-34.
Bettinson, K.A., et al., All-polyethylene compared with metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty at ten years. A prospective, randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2009. 91(7): p. 1587-94.
Gioe, T.J., E.S. Stroemer, and E.R. Santos, All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibias have similar outcomes at 10 years: a randomized level I [corrected] evidence study. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 2007. 455: p. 212-8.
Shen, B., et al., Survivorship comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty--Chinese experience. Int Orthop, 2009. 33(5): p. 1243-7.
Crosby, S.N., et al., Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene tibias in megaprostheses of the distal femur. J Arthroplasty, 2011. 26(3): p. 451-7.
(AOANJRR), A.O.A.N.J.R.R., Annual Report 2012. 2012, Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Registry.
Copyright (c) 2014 Arthur Turow BMBS, B Med Sci, David Campbell BMBS, PhD, FRACS
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License Agreement:
Authors who publish with the Reconstructive Review agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work. Reconstructive Review follows the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC. This license allows anyone to download works, build upon the material, and share them with others for non-commercial purposes as long as they credit the senior author, Reconstructive Review, and the Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation (JISRF). An example credit would be: "Courtesy of (senior author's name), Reconstructive Review, JISRF, Chagrin Falls, Ohio". While works can be downloaded and shared they cannot be used commercially.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.