Can Tibial Cementation Be Enhanced in Knee Arthroplasty Surgery?

Abstract

Aseptic loosening of the tibial component continues to be a significant mode of failure in total knee arthroplasty surgery. Surface cemented components preserve tibial bone stock, but are reliant on a strong bone–cement interface. This study compares standard surface cemented tibial component design to a tibial component with the addition of an undersurface cement containment skirt. The hypothesis was that the addition of a 2-mm underside skirt would allow cement containment and pressurization during implantation, which might improve the overall survival. Two identical tibial components were used, out of which one had the 2-mm underside skirt removed for the purposes of this study. Overall, 12 tibial Sawbones were prepared identically and transducers placed in the medial and lateral plateau. Each component was implanted six times, according to the manufacturer's operative technique. The series of implantation experiments showed no difference in cement pressurization (p = 0.86) regardless of the tibial component design used, with a wide variation in pressure measurements occurring in both groups. The tibial component skirt has not demonstrated any enhancement in cement pressurization. The cement containment skirt might still be advantageous by increasing the cement mantle thickness without causing excessive bone penetration; however, the biological effects cannot be predicted without further clinical evaluation.

Keywords

cement - knee - pressurization

• References

• 1 Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 7-13
• 2 Austin MS, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Knee failure mechanisms after total knee arthroplasty. Tech Knee Surg 2004; 3: 55-59
• 3 Peters CL, Craig MA, Mohr RA, Bachus KN. Tibial component fixation with cement: full- versus surface-cementation techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (409) 158-168
• 4 van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Buma P, Verdonschot N, Veth RP. Femoral bone loss in total knee arthroplasty. A review. Acta Orthop Belg 1999; 65 (2) 154-163
• 5 Hofmann AA, Goldberg TD, Tanner AM, Cook TM. Surface cementation of stemmed tibial components in primary total knee arthroplasty: minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21 (3) 353-357
• 6 Endres S, Wilke A. Is cementing technique the cause of early aseptic loosening of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty?. Orth Rev 2011; 3 (1) e5
• 7 Bert JM, McShane M. Is it necessary to cement the tibial stem in cemented total knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (356) 73-78
• 8 Kuehn KD, Ege W, Gopp U. Acrylic bone cements: mechanical and physical properties. Orthop Clin North Am 2005; 36 (1) 29-39 , v–vi
• 9 National Joint Registry. National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 9th Annual Report (2012). Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/9th_annual_report/NJR%209th%20Annual%20Report%202012.pdf . Accessed June 13, 2013
• 10 Apostolou CD, Yiannakopoulos CK, Ioannidis TT, Papagelopoulos PJ, Korres D. Mechanical stability of total hip replacement using pressurization of bone cement during curing: push-out tests in cadaver femora. Orthopedics 2007; 30 (12) 1028-1032
• 11 Breusch SJ, Norman TL, Revie IC , et al. Cement penetration in the proximal femur does not depend on broach surface finish. Acta Orthop Scand 2001; 72 (1) 29-35