Reading as
Plain-language core. Switch lenses to reveal technical or purchasing detail.
All topics
  1. What it is
  2. Who it helps
  3. Timing
  4. The procedure
  5. Patient journey
  6. Recovery supplies
  7. Implant designs
  8. Side-by-side
  9. Robotics and alignment
  10. US manufacturers
  11. What the evidence says
  12. Value analysis
  13. Questions to ask
  14. Resources
  15. Glossary
  16. References

Options

Implant designs and materials

Every knee replacement makes a few design choices. None is best for every patient, and for most of them the research finds small or no differences. Your surgeon's experience with a system, your bone quality, your ligaments and your anatomy all shape the choice.

Fixation: cemented or cementless

CementedCementless (press-fit)Hybrid

Cemented implants are fixed with bone cement and are stable immediately. Cementless implants have a porous surface, often 3D-printed titanium, that the bone grows into over the following weeks. Cementless use in the US roughly tripled between 2016 and 2022.17

What the evidence shows

  • Randomized trials found no difference in revision or function up to 16 years14

Points of caution

  • Two large US registries found no survivorship advantage for cementless; some cementless designs had higher early revision15,16
Clinical detail
  • Michigan registry (147,838 TKAs): 5-year cumulative percent revision 3.65% uncemented vs 3.19% cemented (P < 0.0001).15
  • Kaiser registry (130,242 TKAs): cementless twin-peg constructs had higher aseptic revision (HR 2.13); spikes-and-keel constructs showed no difference (HR 0.94).16

Ligament handling: CR, PS and medial-congruent

Cruciate-retaining (CR)Posterior-stabilized (PS)Medial-congruent / medial-pivot

The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) can be kept (cruciate-retaining) or removed and replaced by a post-and-cam mechanism in the implant (posterior-stabilized). Newer "medial-congruent" or "medial-pivot" inserts use a deeper inner side to provide stability with or without the PCL.

What the evidence shows

  • A Cochrane review found differences in motion and function too small to matter clinically18

Points of caution

  • The choice often depends on the condition of the PCL and the surgeon's training
Clinical detail

Cochrane (17 RCTs, 1,810 patients): range of motion 2.4 degrees higher and functional KSS 2.3 points higher with PCL sacrifice, judged clinically irrelevant; no difference in pain, WOMAC or complications.18

Bearing: fixed or mobile

Fixed bearingMobile (rotating) bearing

In a fixed-bearing knee the plastic spacer is locked to the tray. In a mobile-bearing knee it can rotate slightly, which was designed to reduce wear. Most US knees are fixed bearing.

What the evidence shows

  • A meta-analysis of 74 randomized trials found no advantage for mobile bearings19

Points of caution

  • No difference in revision, loosening or knee pain19

The kneecap: resurface or not

ResurfacedRetained (not resurfaced)

The back of the kneecap can be covered with a plastic button or left natural. Practice varies widely between surgeons and countries.

What the evidence shows

  • Not resurfacing was linked to more front-of-knee pain and more repeat operations in one meta-analysis20

Points of caution

  • Reviews of the meta-analyses found no clear overall winner21
Clinical detail

33 RCTs (4,135 TKAs): anterior knee pain OR 1.84 and reoperation OR 1.46 without resurfacing; functional differences did not exceed the MCID.20 Higher reoperation without resurfacing may partly reflect the option of secondary resurfacing.21

What implants are made of

Cobalt-chromeTitaniumOxidized zirconiumPolyethylene

Femoral components are usually cobalt-chromium alloy; some use oxidized zirconium or a ceramic-like coating, which can matter for people with metal sensitivity. Tibial trays are cobalt-chromium or titanium alloy, and cementless versions often use porous titanium. The spacer is ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, often highly cross-linked and sometimes blended with vitamin E to resist oxidation. Ask your surgeon which materials your implant uses.

Considering a partial instead of a total knee? See partial vs total knee replacement.

Sources for this page

  1. Prasad AK, et al. Cemented vs. cementless fixation in primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EFORT Open Rev. 2020;5(11):793-798. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.5.200030
  2. Paull TZ, et al. Uncemented total knee arthroplasty in the State of Michigan has higher rates of revision through 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2025;40(7S1):S263-S270. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2025.03.007
  3. Chen F, et al. What is the survivorship of TKA with a twin-peg or spikes-and-keel cementless implant compared with cemented? A registry-based cohort study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025;483(7):1288-1298. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000003385
  4. Finch D, et al. National trends in use and complications of cemented, cementless, manual, and robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: 2016-2022. J Knee Surg. 2026;39(4):208-217. doi:10.1055/a-2712-4129
  5. Verra WC, et al. Retention versus sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty for treating osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(10):CD004803. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004803.pub3
  6. Migliorini F, et al. No difference between mobile and fixed bearing in primary total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022;30(9):3138-3154. doi:10.1007/s00167-022-07065-5
  7. Simpson CJRW, et al. Patellar resurfacing versus retention in cruciate-retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2023;105-B(6):622-634. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.105B6.BJJ-2022-0970.R2
  8. Grassi A, et al. Patellar resurfacing versus patellar retention in primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(11):3206-3218. doi:10.1007/s00167-018-4831-8

All references