Objective: To compare the clinical, radiographic and medium-term follow-up results from two fixation methods for the tibial component in revision procedures on total knee prostheses: cemented (tray and stem) and hybrid (cemented tray and uncemented, nonporous canal-filling stem).
Methods: Between August 1999 and November 2005, 30 revision procedures on total knee arthroplasties were performed on 26 patients, who were divided between group I (cemented fixation; 21 knees) and group II (hybrid fixation; nine knees). The mean follow-up was 52 months and no patients were lost from the follow up.
Results: No differences in the scores from the WOMAC and Knee Society questionnaires were observed between the two groups. One patient in group I presented radiographic signs of loosening. Two patients (one in each group) complained of pain in the diaphyseal region, compatible with the location of the stem tip. The pedestal radiographic sign was observed in 89% of the knees with uncemented stems and in none of the cemented group.
Conclusion: The comparative analysis between the two methods did not show any differences regarding clinical and radiographic parameters, or arthroplasty survival.
Keywords: Arthroplasty; Cementation; Knee/surgery; Revision.