• Pablo Sanz-Ruiz, Manuel Villanueva-Martínez, Jose Antonio Matas-Diez, and Javier Vaquero-Martín.
• From the Department of Traumatology and Orthopaedic Surgery, General University Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Doctor Esquerdo Street, number 46, ZIP code 28007, Madrid, Spain. Pablo.sanzruiz@gmail.com.
• Bmc Musculoskel Dis. 2015 Feb 25; 16: 39.

BackgroundThe increasing number of revision knee arthroplasty result in the more frequently use of a constraint implant but results from previous reports are difficult to interpret. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of superficial cemented versus metaphyseal cemented in revision total knee arthroplasty with a condylar constrained arthroplasty.MethodsThe study was a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes in a series of revision total knee arthroplasties performed with a constrained condylar knee prosthesis and press-fit modular stems. We hypothesized that the clinical and radiographic outcome of surface cementation would be inferior to that of metaphyseal cementation. Fifty-two consecutive revision cases were followed for a median of 8.2 years (range, 6 to 10 years).ResultsSubstantial improvements in range of motion and Knee Society score were achieved in all patients, although these were not significant between groups. Significantly more radiolucent lines were visible on the tibial component with surface cementation than with metaphyseal cementation, although the clinical differences were not relevant.ConclusionsRadiologic outcome was better in revision total knee arthroplasty using metaphyseal cemented revision and components with press-fit cementless stems than in the surface cementation-based approach; however, the difference was not clinically relevant.

36 keywords...

hide…