Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2019; 32(11): 1058-1062
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1678678
Special Focus Section
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Postoperative Infection in Cementless and Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

Hiba K. Anis
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Deepak Ramanathan
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Nipun Sodhi
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Alison K. Klika
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Nicolas S. Piuzzi
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Michael A. Mont
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Carlos A. Higuera
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida
,
Robert M. Molloy
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

11 October 2018

27 December 2018

Publication Date:
12 February 2019 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The ongoing debate on fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has become increasingly relevant with its increased use in a younger patient population and the advent of novel cementless prostheses. Recent literature suggests modern cementless implants are comparable to their cemented counterparts in terms of survivorship and functional outcomes. What has not been well-assessed is whether the two modalities differ with respect to infection rates which was the purpose of this study. Specifically, a propensity score matched study population was used to compare: (1) overall infection; (2) prosthetic joint infection (PJI); and (3) surgical site infection (SSI) rates between cementless and cemented TKAs. Using a large institutional database, 3,180 consecutive primary TKAs were identified. Cementless and cemented TKA patients were propensity score matched by age (p = 0.069), sex (p = 0.395), body mass index (BMI; p = 0.308), and Charlson's comorbidity index (CCI) score (p = 0.616) in a 1:1 ratio. Univariate analysis was performed to compare 2-year overall infection rates. Infections were further analyzed separately as PJIs (deep joint infections requiring surgery) and SSIs (skin/superficial wound infections). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate infection incidences after adjusting for procedure-related factors (i.e., operative time, hospital volume, and surgeon volume). There were no significant differences between the matched cohorts in terms of overall infection rates (3.8 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.722), as well as when PJI (p = 1.000) and SSI (p = 1.000) rates were analyzed separately. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant differences in overall postoperative infection rates (p = 0.285), PJI rates (p = 0.446), or SSI rates (p = 0.453) even after adjusting for procedure-related factors. There is increasing literature investigating various outcomes demonstrating the comparable efficacies of cementless versus cemented TKAs. To the best of the author's knowledge, this was the first matched case-control study to directly compare their post-operative infection rates. The findings from this study show that post-operative infection rates were similar between fixation modalities even after accounting for a range of patient- and procedure-related factors.

Keywords

cementless - total knee arthroplasty - infection
 

  • References

  • 1 Newman JM, Sodhi N, Khlopas A. , et al. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive review of the literature. Orthopedics 2018; 41 (05) 263-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dalury DF. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: current concepts review. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (07) 867-873
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Aprato A, Risitano S, Sabatini L, Giachino M, Agati G, Massè A. Cementless total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2016; 4 (07) 129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Matassi F, Carulli C, Civinini R, Innocenti M. Cemented versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Joints 2014; 1 (03) 121-125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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): 82-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 O'Rourke MR, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Osteolysis associated with a cemented modular posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee design : five to eight-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84-A (08) 1362-1371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chong DYR, Hansen UN, van der Venne R, Verdonschot N, Amis AA. The influence of tibial component fixation techniques on resorption of supporting bone stock after total knee replacement. J Biomech 2011; 44 (05) 948-954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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 (05) 369-376
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Long WJ, Bryce CD, Hollenbeak CS, Benner RW, Scott WN. Total knee replacement in young, active patients: long-term follow-up and functional outcome: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (18) e159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mont MA, Gwam C, Newman JM. , et al. Outcomes of a newer-generation cementless total knee arthroplasty design in patients less than 50 years of age. Ann Transl Med 2017; 5 (Suppl. 03) S24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Naudie DDR, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA, Rorabeck CH. Wear and osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2007; 15 (01) 53-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Lim H-M, Park E-S. Cementless and cemented total knee arthroplasty in patients younger than fifty five years. Which is better?. Int Orthop 2014; 38 (02) 297-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hofmann AA, Heithoff SM, Camargo M. Cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients 50 years or younger. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 102-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Tai CC, Cross MJ. Five- to 12-year follow-up of a hydroxyapatite-coated, cementless total knee replacement in young, active patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (09) 1158-1163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (05) 373-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kamath AF, Lee G-C, 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 (08) 1390-1395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Nam D, Kopinski JE, Meyer Z, Rames RD, Nunley RM, Barrack RL. Perioperative and early postoperative comparison of a modern cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty of the same design. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (07) 2151-2155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Choy W-S, Yang D-S, Lee K-W, Lee S-K, Kim K-J, Chang S-H. Cemented versus cementless fixation of a tibial component in LCS mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (12) 2397-2401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fricka KB, Sritulanondha S, McAsey CJ. To cement or not? two-year results of a prospective, randomized study comparing cemented vs. cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA). J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (9, Suppl): 55-58
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Harwin SF, Patel NK, Chughtai M. , et al. Outcomes of newer generation cementless total knee arthroplasty: beaded periapatite-coated vs highly porous titanium-coated implants. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (07) 2156-2160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jämsen E, Huhtala H, Puolakka T, Moilanen T. Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty. A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (01) 38-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Meehan JP, Danielsen B, Kim SH, Jamali AA, White RH. Younger age is associated with a higher risk of early periprosthetic joint infection and aseptic mechanical failure after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (07) 529-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Shah SH, Schwartz BE, Schwartz AR, Goldberg BA, Chmell SJ. Total knee arthroplasty in the younger patient. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (06) 555-559
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rowe PJ, Myles CM, Walker C, Nutton R. Knee joint kinematics in gait and other functional activities measured using flexible electrogoniometry: how much knee motion is sufficient for normal daily life?. Gait Posture 2000; 12 (02) 143-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Elmallah RDK, Cherian JJ, Robinson K, Harwin SF, Mont MA. The effect of comorbidities on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2015; 28 (05) 411-416
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Bohl DD, Ondeck NT, Darrith B, Hannon CP, Fillingham YA, Della Valle CJ. Impact of operative time on adverse events following primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (07) 2256-2262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lau RL, Perruccio AV, Gandhi R, Mahomed NN. The role of surgeon volume on patient outcome in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pamilo KJ, Peltola M, Paloneva J, Mäkelä K, Häkkinen U, Remes V. Hospital volume affects outcome after total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2015; 86 (01) 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ramkumar PN, Navarro SM, Frankel WC, Haeberle HS, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Evidence-based thresholds for the volume and length of stay relationship in total hip arthroplasty: outcomes and economies of scale. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (07) 2031-2037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wilson S, Marx RG, Pan T-J, Lyman S. Meaningful thresholds for the volume-outcome relationship in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (20) 1683-1690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lass R, Kubista B, Holinka J. , et al. Comparison of cementless and hybrid cemented total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36 (04) e420-e427
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cheng H, Chen BP-H, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P. Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2017; 18 (06) 722-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Namba RS, Inacio MCS, Paxton EW. Risk factors associated with deep surgical site infections after primary total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 56,216 knees. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013; 95 (09) 775-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bagsby DT, Issa K, Smith LS. , et al. Cemented vs cementless total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (08) 1727-1731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Dale H, Hallan G, Hallan G, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB. Increasing risk of revision due to deep infection after hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (06) 639-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Pedersen AB, Svendsson JE, Johnsen SP, Riis A, Overgaard S. Risk factors for revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty. A population-based study of 80,756 primary procedures in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (05) 542-547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar