Wetzels Thomas, van Erp Joost, Brouwer Reinoud W, Bulstra Sjoerd K, van Raay Jos J A M
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Martini Ziekenhuis, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopaedics, Universitair Medisch Centrum Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Knee Surg. 2019 Sep;32(9):886-890. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1669917. Epub 2018 Sep 6.
Aseptic loosening remains to be a major reason for revision in total knee arthroplasty. Cement penetration of 2 to 5 mm increases the interface strength and consequently decreases the likelihood of loosening. But despite this overall accepted optimal cement penetration, there is still a wide variety of cementing techniques used in total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two cementing techniques on the tibial and femoral sides, with regard to cement penetration. Five paired cadaveric knees were used. A total knee arthroplasty was placed according to standard practice, with a setup that mimics the clinical practice. On the tibial side, we compared the application of cement to the bone surface alone, to the application of cement to both the bone surface and the component. On the femoral side, we compared the application of cement to the posterior condyles of the component and to the anterior and distal parts of the bone surface, to the application of cement to the component alone. After the cement had cured, the arthroplasty was removed and the bone was examined to determine the cement penetration using digital software. When applying cement to both the tibial bone surface and the tibial component, the cement penetration increased compared with applying cement to the tibial bone surface alone (3.46 vs. 2.66 mm, = 0.007). With regard to the distal femoral cuts, the cement penetration did not vary when applied to either the bone or the component (2.81 vs. 2.91 mm). But applying it to the anterior bone surface did seem preferable, when compared with only applying it to the component. The average cement penetration did not differ, but applying the cement to the bone did enlarge the total length of the cement distribution (2.48 vs. 0.96 mm, = 0.011). Almost no cement was detected on the posterior surface of the femoral cut. We concluded that applying cement to both the tibial bone surface and the component improves cement penetration.
无菌性松动仍然是全膝关节置换术翻修的主要原因。骨水泥渗透2至5毫米可增加界面强度,从而降低松动的可能性。尽管这种总体上被认可的最佳骨水泥渗透情况存在,但全膝关节置换术中仍使用多种骨水泥固定技术。本研究的目的是评估在胫骨侧和股骨侧的两种骨水泥固定技术在骨水泥渗透方面的情况。使用了五对尸体膝关节。按照标准操作进行全膝关节置换术,设置模拟临床实践。在胫骨侧,我们比较了仅将骨水泥应用于骨表面与将骨水泥应用于骨表面和假体两者的情况。在股骨侧,我们比较了将骨水泥应用于假体后髁以及骨表面的前部和远端与仅将骨水泥应用于假体的情况。骨水泥固化后,取出关节置换物并检查骨骼,使用数字软件确定骨水泥渗透情况。当将骨水泥应用于胫骨骨表面和胫骨假体两者时,与仅将骨水泥应用于胫骨骨表面相比,骨水泥渗透增加(3.46对2.66毫米,P = 0.007)。对于股骨远端截骨,将骨水泥应用于骨或假体时,骨水泥渗透没有变化(2.81对2.91毫米)。但与仅应用于假体相比,将其应用于骨表面前部似乎更可取。平均骨水泥渗透没有差异,但将骨水泥应用于骨确实扩大了骨水泥分布的总长度(2.48对0.96毫米,P = 0.011)。在股骨截骨的后表面几乎未检测到骨水泥。我们得出结论,将骨水泥应用于胫骨骨表面和假体两者可改善骨水泥渗透。