Background Porous tantalum is an option of cementless fixation for TKA, but there is no randomized comparison with a cemented implant in a mid-term followup. Questions/purposes We asked whether a tibial component fixed by a porous tantalum system might achieve (1) better clinical outcome as reflected by the Knee Society Score (KSS) and WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, (2) fewer complications and reoperations, and (3) improved radiographic results with respect to aseptic loosening compared with a conventional cemented implant.Methods We randomized 145 patients into two groups, either a porous tantalum cementless tibial component group (Group 1) or cemented conventional tibial component in posterior cruciate retaining TKA group (Group 2). Patients were evaluated preoperatively and 15 days, 6 months, and 5 years after surgery, using the KSS and the WOMAC index. Complications, reoperations, and radiographic failures were tallied. Results At 5-year followup the KSS mean was 90.4 (range, 68-100; 95% CI, ± 1.6) for Group 1, and 86.5 (range, 56-99; 95% CI, ± 2.4) for Group 2. The effect size, at 95% CI for the difference between means, was 3.88 ± 2.87. The WOMAC mean was 15.1 (range, 0-51; 95% CI, ± 2.6) for the Group 1, and 19.1 (range, 4-61; 95% CI, ± 2.9) for Group 2. The effect size for WOMAC was À4.0 ± 3.9. There were no differences in the frequency of complications or in aseptic loosening between the two groups. Conclusions Our data suggest there are small differences between the uncemented porous tantalum tibial component and the conventional cemented tibial component. It currently is undetermined whether the differences outweigh the cost of the implant and the results of their long-term performance.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a rapidly evolving therapeutic modality currently available for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) that are unsuitable for surgery because of technical/anatomical issues or high-estimated surgical risk. Transfemoral approach is the preferred TAVI delivery route when possible. Alternative non-transfemoral access options include transaortic, trans-subclavian and transapical access. Other approaches are also feasible (transcarotid, transcaval, and antegrade aortic) but are restricted to operators and hospitals with experience. The peculiarities of each of the vascular approaches designed for TAVI delivery make it necessary to carefully assess patient's atherosclerotic load and location, arterial size and tortuosity, and presence of mural thrombus. Several clinical trials are currently ongoing and in the near future the indications for these approaches will likely be better defined and extended to a broader spectrum of TAVI candidates.

We carried out a multicentre study to compare the postoperative femorotibial radiographic axis in two total knee replacement groups; one using manual instrumentation and the other using navigation. In the latter group, three navigation systems were used: Stryker, Orthopilot and Navitrack. The prior circumstances of patients in terms of age, weight, aetiology, epicondylar perimeter, patellar tendon length and knee deformity was similar in both groups. The duration of the operation was longer in the group with navigation (16.7 min). A normal femorotibial axis was more frequently obtained in the group with a navigator compared to the manual group (48.1% and 30%, respectively). A varus axis was most common in the manual group (42.2 and 26.

Level II, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Level II, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines online for a complete description of levels of evidence.