Comparison Of All-Polyethylene And Metal-Backed Modular Tibial Components In Endoprosthetic Reconstruction Of The Distal Femur

Introduction All-polyethylene (AP) tibial components have demonstrated equivalent or improved long-term survivorship and reduced cost compared with metal-backed (MB) components in primary total knee arthroplasty; however, there is a lack of data comparing these outcomes in the setting of an oncologic endoprosthetic reconstruction.Methods A total of 115 (88 AP:27 MB) patients undergoing cemented distal femur endoprosthetic reconstruction following oncologic resection were reviewed. Mean age was 40 years and 51% were females. Cumulative incidences of all-cause revision, tibial component revision, reoperation, and infection were calculated utilizing a competing risk analysis with death as the competitor. Mean follow-up was 14 years.Results The 10-year cumulative incidence of all-cause revision was 19.9% in the AP group and 16.3% in the MB group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93, p = 0.88). The cumulative incidence of tibial component revision was significantly lower in AP compared with MB at 10 years (1.1% vs. 12.5%, HR = 0.18, p = 0.03). There was no difference in infection-free survival when comparing the two groups (p = 0.72).Conclusions Reconstruction utilizing an MB or AP tibia component resulted in equivalent overall outcome; however, the tibial component in the AP group was less likely to be revised. AP tibial component should be considered for all primary oncologic reconstructions in the distal femur.Level of Evidence Level III Therapeutic.