A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Patients With Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Cemented, Uncemented, or Hybrid Techniques

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 15; no. 10; p. e47299
• Main Authors: Fozo, Zien Alabdin, Hussein Ghazal, Ahmed, Kamal, Ibrahim, Muhe Eldeen Eshag, Mona, Elhady, Mahmoud M, Hesham Gamal, Mohamed, Mohamed fisal, Khalid, Ragab, Khaled Mohamed
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Palo Alto Cureus Inc 18.10.2023; Cureus
• Subjects: Arthritis; Cement; Handbooks; Hydroxyapatite; Joint replacement surgery; Knee; Meta-analysis; Orthopedics; Osteoarthritis; Patients; Prostheses; Transplants & implants; France
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47299

In this study, we aim to explore the differences among the three types of fixation methods for the components of the knee joint in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA). These methods are cemented, uncemented, and hybrid fixation. Cemented fixation means that a special type of grout is used to attach the components to the bone. Uncemented fixation means that the components are designed to fit tightly into the bone and allow new bone growth to secure them. Hybrid fixation means that a combination of cemented and uncemented fixation is used for different components. We searched four online databases to find studies relevant to our research question. We use the R program (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) for network meta-analysis (NMA) to analyze the data from the studies. We calculate the mean difference (MD) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome, which are statistical measures of the difference and the uncertainty between methods. We use these measures for continuous outcomes, meaning they can have any value. For dichotomous outcomes, meaning they can only have two values, we use the risk ratio (RR) and the 95% CI, which are statistical measures of the relative risk and the uncertainty between methods. We assess the quality of randomized controlled trials, which are studies that randomly assign participants to different methods, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 1, a tool that evaluates the potential biases in the studies. We include 21 studies, and our analysis shows that cemented TKA reveals a statistically significant decrease in pain with hybrid TKA (MD = -2.82). That said, we find no significant differences between uncemented and cemented or hybrid (MD = -0.80 and -2.02, respectively). The results show that there is no significant difference between uncemented TKA and cemented TKA or hybrid technique (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.35-2.14; RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.22-2.39, respectively). Also, we find no significant difference between cemented TKA and hybrid TKA (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.24-2.93). Cemented TKA is associated with a lower risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) incidence rate. Moreover, it shows a significant decrease in pain compared to hybrid TKA. Future research is needed to compare among the three interventions.