Skip to main content

Table 3 Mean values and standard deviations (SD) of surface roughness values and hood scores of all implants investigated; N of all revision reasons. Comparison between the two implant designs using R2 P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant

From: Comparative retrieval analysis of a novel anatomic tibial tray backside: alterations in tibial component design and surface coating can increase cement adhesions and surface roughness

Implant type Total (N = 23) NexGen® (N = 15) Persona® (N = 8) Comparison Comparison – corrected for time to revision
Cement adhesions Mean, SD Mean, SD Mean, SD R2 P R2 P
Tibial tray backside, % 0.39 +/−0.32 0.20 +/− 0.21 0.75 +/− 0.08 0.70 .000 0.59 .000
Dimensions Mean, SD Mean, SD Mean, SD R2 P R2 P
Stem, mm 39.6 +/−4.6 41.2 +/−4.44 36.5 +/−3.4 0.24 .016 0.13 .093
Tray Lip, mm 0.57 +/− 0.03 0.57 +/− 0.03 0.56 +/− 0.04 0.02 .533 0.09 .199
Tray thickness, mm (including lip) 3.81 +/− 0.6 3.62 +/− 0.05 4.2 +/−1.00 0.21 .033 0.14 .090
Surface roughness (Ra) Mean, SD Mean, SD Mean, SD R2 P R2 P
Tibial back lateral Ra 1.19 +/− 0.3 1.10 +/− 0.24 1.36 +/− 0.35 0.18 .047 0.19 .044
Tibial back medial Ra 1.21 +/− 0.32 1.12 +/− 0.28 1.39 +/− 0.34 0.16 .050 0.13 .098
Tibial stem Ra 1.02 +/− 0.34 0.89 +/− 0.19 1.26 +/− 0.44 0.27 .011 0.17 .055
Tibial back & stem Ra 1.14 +/− 0.3 1.04 +/− 0.20 1.34 +/− 0.37 0.23 .021 0.18 .046
Time to revision 5.92 +/−5.23 7.92 +/−5.5 2.2 +/− 0.94 0.29 0.009 n.a. n.a.
Reason for revision N (%) N (%) N (%) R2 P R2 P
Instability 17 (74) 9 (60) 8 (100) 0.19 .039 0.32 .006
Malalignment 3 (13) 2 (13) 1 (13) 0.00 .957 0.01 .607
Patellofemoral 4 (17) 1 (7) 3 (38) 0.15 .068 0.04 .360
Stiffness 4 (17) 3 (20) 1 (3) 0.00 .669 0.16 .070
Others (periprosthetic fracture, progression OA) 2 (10) 2 (13) 0 (0) 0.05 .301 0.01 .657