Metal-backed or all-poly tibial components: which are better for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty? A propensity-score-matching retrospective study at the 5-year follow-up.

backgroundThis retrospective medium-term follow-up study compares the outcomes of medial fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) using a cemented metal-backed (MB) or an all-polyethylene (AP) tibial component. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe database of our institution was mined for primary mUKA patients implanted with an MB or an AP tibial component (the MB-UKA and AP-UKA groups, respectively) from 2015 to 2018. We compared patient demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and motion analysis data obtained with the Riablo™ system (CoRehab, Trento, Italy). We conducted propensity-score-matching (PSM) analysis (1:1) using multiple variables.

resultsPSM analysis yielded 77 pairs of MB-UKA and AP-UKA patients. At 5 years, the physical component summary (PCS) score was 52.4 ± 8.3 in MB-UKA and 48.2 ± 8.3 in AP-UKA patients (p < 0.001). The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) was 82.9 ± 18.8 in MB-UKAs and 73.4 ± 22.5 in AP-UKAs (p = 0.015). Tibial pain was reported by 7.8% of the MB-UKA and 35.1% of the AP-UKA patients (p < 0.001). Static postural sway was, respectively, 3.9 ± 2.1 cm and 5.4 ± 2.3 (p = 0.0002), and gait symmetry was, respectively, 92.7% ± 3.7 cm and 90.4% ± 5.4 cm (p = 0.006). Patient satisfaction was 9.2 ± 0.8 in the MB-UKA and 8.3 ± 2.0 in the AP-UKA group (p < 0.003).

conclusionsMB-UKA patients experienced significantly better 5-year static sway and gait symmetry outcomes than AP-UKA patients. Although the PROMs of the two groups overlapped, MB-UKA patients had a lower incidence of tibial pain, better FJS-12 and PCS scores, and were more satisfied.