Background:Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) provides highly accurate data about the migration of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) component. However, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reflect the patients' perspective of their functional status, pain, and overall health after TKA. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between tibial implant migration and change in postoperative PROMs and clinical scores, using data pooled from long-Term follow-up RSA studies.Methods:Individual implant migration data were collected from 5 randomized RSA studies, including a total of 300 patients with 6 distinct TKA implant designs (all Stryker). Tibial implant migration (maximum total point motion [MTPM]) was evaluated with RSA at 3 months, 1 year, and 2, 5, 7, and 10 years postoperatively. The Knee Society Score (KSS)-Knee and KSS-Function and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales were collected in all studies at the same follow-up times. Linear mixed-effects models, with adjustment for TKA implant design and patient characteristics, were used to analyze the data. The 3-month follow-up visit was used as the baseline to assess the association between implant migration and PROMs across the 10-year follow-up.Results:No association between tibial implant migration and change in KSS-Knee (p = 0.384), KSS-Function (p = 0.737), KOOS-Symptoms (p = 0.398), KOOS-Pain (p = 0.699), KOOS-Activities of Daily Living (p = 0.205), KOOS-Sport and Recreation (p = 0.702), or KOOS-Quality of Life (p = 0.368) was found across the entire follow-up. Similar results were found when using the 2-year follow-up as the baseline, after which both cemented and uncemented implants are expected to have stabilized.Conclusions:Tibial baseplate migration was not associated with postoperative worsening in PROMs or clinical scores in patients who underwent TKA. These findings suggest that implant migration, as measured with RSA, measures a different parameter (i.e., implant-bone fixation) than PROMs (i.e., patient perception) and clinical scores. Therefore, to assess the performance and safety of TKA implant designs, RSA and PROMs cannot be used interchangeably during the postoperative follow-up of patients and evaluation of the fixation of knee implants.Level of Evidence:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background and purpose — Different marker-selection methods are applied to represent implant and tibial seg-ments in radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Either a consistent set of markers throughout subsequent RSA examinations (“consistent-marker method”) is used or all available markers at each follow-up (“all-marker method”). The aim of this secondary analysis was to compare marker-selection methods on individual and group level TKA migration results. Methods — Data from a randomized RSA study with 72 patients was included. Tibial baseplate migration was evalu-ated at 3 months, 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively with both marker-selection methods. Additionally, migration was calculated using 5 fictive points, either plotted based on the consistent set of markers or all available markers. Results — Migration could be calculated with both marker-selection methods for 248 examinations. The same prosthesis and bone markers (n = 136), different prosthesis markers (n = 71), different bone markers (n = 21), or different prosthesis and bone markers (n = 20) were used. The mean difference in maximum total point motion (MTPM) between all examinations was 0.02 mm, 95% confidence interval –0.26 to 0.31 mm. 5 implants were classified as continuously migrating with the consistent-marker method versus 6 implants (same 5 plus one additional implant) with the all-marker method. Using fictive points, fewer implants were classified as continuously migrating in both marker-selection methods. Differences between TKA groups in mean MTPM were comparable with both marker-selection methods, also when fictive points were used. Conclusion — Estimated group differences in mean MTPM were similar between marker-selection methods, but individual migration results differed. The latter has implications when classifying implants for estimated risk of future loosening.

BACKGROUND: Three-dimensional (3D) printing of highly porous orthopaedic implants aims to promote better osseointegration, thus preventing aseptic loosening. However, short-term radiostereometric analysis (RSA) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has shown higher initial migration of cementless 3D-printed tibial components compared with their cemented counterparts. Therefore, critical evaluation of longer-term tibial component migration is needed. We investigated migration of a cementless 3D-printed and a cemented tibial component with otherwise similar TKA design during 5 years of follow-up, particularly the progression in migration beyond 2 years postoperatively. METHODS: Seventy-two patients were randomized to a cementless 3D-printed Triathlon Tritanium (Stryker) cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA or a cemented Triathlon CR (Stryker) TKA implant. Implant migration was evaluated with RSA at baseline and postoperatively at 3 months and at 1, 2, and 5 years. The maximum total point motion (MTPM) of the tibial component was compared between the groups at 5 years, and progression in migration was assessed between 2 and 5 years. Individual implants were classified as continuously migrating if the MTPM was ≥0.1 mm/year beyond 2 years postoperatively. Clinical scores were evaluated, and a linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze repeated measurements. RESULTS: At 5 years, the mean MTPM was 0.66 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.78 mm) for the cementless group and 0.53 mm (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.64 mm) for the cemented group (p = 0.09). Between 2 and 5 years, there was no progression in mean MTPM for the cementless group (0.02 mm; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.10 mm) versus 0.07 mm (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.14) for the cemented group. One implant was continuously migrating in the cementless group, and 4 were continuously migrating in the cemented group. The clinical scores were comparable between the groups across the entire time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in mean migration was found at 5 years between the cementless and cemented TKA implants. Progression of tibial component migration was present beyond 2 years for the cemented implant, whereas the cementless implant remained stable after initial early migration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.