Abstract
BackgroundDifferent bone cements and various cementation techniques can lead to different bone loss in revision surgery. We investigated the degree of tibial bone loss depending on different cements and techniques.Methods30 tibia specimens were matched into three groups (10 each). In all cases Genesis II tibia component were implanted. In two groups, the tibia base plate alone was cemented with Palacos® R+G and Refobacin® Bone Cement R. In the third group, both tibial base plate and tibial stem were cemented with Palacos® R+G. Afterwards, the specimens were axial loaded with 2000 N for 10,000 cycles. Tibial components were explanted and the required time to explantation was recorded. Bone loss after explantation was measured by CT.ResultsOn CT, there was no significant difference in bone loss between cementing techniques (p = 0.077; 95% CI -1.14 - 21.03) or the cements themselves (p = 0.345; 95% CI -6.05 - 16.70). The required time to explantation was 170.6 ± 54.89, 228.7 ± 84.5, and 145.7 ± 73.0 seconds in the first, second, and third groups, respectively.ConclusionsCement technique and type do not influence tibial bone loss in simulated revision surgery of the tibial component in knee arthroplasty.
Highlights
Different bone cements and various cementation techniques can lead to different bone loss in revision surgery
The lack of scientific verification, we investigated whether different bone cements and cement techniques affect tibial bone loss
We found no significant difference in tibial bone loss after explantation of the tibial component for either the two bone cement types, or cementing technique
Summary
Different bone cements and various cementation techniques can lead to different bone loss in revision surgery. We investigated the degree of tibial bone loss depending on different cements and techniques. Primary cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a well-established procedure with excellent clinical results [1,2]. Enhanced indications for joint arthroplasty have come about as a result of patients’ desires for self-sufficiency and improved quality of life. Revision total knee arthroplasty presents a clinical challenge. To provide stable implant fixation and to reestablish the correct joint line bony defects can be treated with cement, modular augments, custom-made implants, and bone grafts [3,4,5]. Bone cements of different manufacturers have the
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
