OrthoCarolina Matthews, Matthews, NC; OrthoCarolina Research Institute, Charlotte, NC.
OrthoCarolina Research Institute, Charlotte, NC; OrthoCarolina Hip & Knee Center, Charlotte, NC; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Atrium Health/Atrium Musculoskeletal Institute, Charlotte, NC.
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jul;36(7):2497-2501. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.029. Epub 2021 Feb 12.
Aseptic tibial loosening is a frequent cause of long-term failure following primary cemented total knee replacement. Failure of the tibial implant can occur at the implant-cement interface or at the cement-bone interface. Currently, it is unknown at which interface failure occurs in cases of aseptic tibial loosening. The following study was designed to determine which interface represents the "weak link" for tibial implant fixation.
We performed a retrospective analysis of 149 patients who were revised secondary to aseptic tibial loosening at our institution from 2005 to 2017. Operative reports and radiographs were reviewed on each patient to determine the location and pattern of fixation failure.
Implant failure was more prevalent at the implant-cement than cement-bone interface, 140/149 (94.0%) vs 9/149 (6.0%). Additionally, we noted 2 distinct patterns of failure in patients that loosened at the implant-cement interface. Ninety of 140 (64.3%) patients developed varus collapse pattern of failure. Forty-nine of 140 (35.0%) patients developed failure between the implant-cement interface without angulation. All 149 patients had heterotopic bone formation anterior to the tibial baseplate, which was consistent regardless of which interface failed.
The most frequent interface failure identified in our study was at the implant-cement interface, 140/149 (94.0%). This finding has substantial clinical ramifications. Because failure was predominantly at the implant-cement interface there may be design opportunities for increasing implant fixation to cement. Implants with improved undersurface tibial tray features may be necessary to mitigate the risk of failure at this interface, especially in overly active patients or those with elevated body mass indices.
无菌性胫骨松动是初次骨水泥固定全膝关节置换术后长期失败的常见原因。胫骨植入物的失效可能发生在植入物-水泥界面或水泥-骨界面。目前,在无菌性胫骨松动的情况下,尚不清楚失效发生在哪种界面。本研究旨在确定胫骨植入物固定的“薄弱环节”在哪种界面。
我们对 2005 年至 2017 年在我院因无菌性胫骨松动而进行翻修的 149 例患者进行了回顾性分析。对每位患者的手术报告和影像学资料进行了回顾,以确定固定失效的位置和模式。
植入物失效更常见于植入物-水泥界面而非水泥-骨界面,140/149(94.0%)比 9/149(6.0%)。此外,我们在胫骨松动发生于植入物-水泥界面的患者中观察到 2 种不同的失效模式。90/140(64.3%)例患者发生内翻塌陷失效模式。49/140(35.0%)例患者发生植入物-水泥界面无角度的失效。所有 149 例患者的胫骨基底部前方均有异位骨形成,无论哪种界面失效,均可见到这种表现。
在我们的研究中,最常见的界面失效发生在植入物-水泥界面,140/149(94.0%)。这一发现具有重要的临床意义。由于失效主要发生在植入物-水泥界面,因此可能有机会通过增加植入物与水泥的固定来提高固定效果。需要具有改进的胫骨托底面特征的植入物来降低在此界面失效的风险,特别是在过度活跃的患者或身体质量指数较高的患者中。