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.@en

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.@en