Is cement mantle thickness a primary cause of aseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee arthroplasty?

Zach C. Cox, Stephen M Engstrom, A. Shinar, Gregory G. Polkowski, J. Mason, J. R. Martin
{"title":"Is cement mantle thickness a primary cause of aseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee arthroplasty?","authors":"Zach C. Cox, Stephen M Engstrom, A. Shinar, Gregory G. Polkowski, J. Mason, J. R. Martin","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.4125881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee replacement is one of the leading causes of long-term failure. Cement mantle thickness has been implicated as a source of aseptic tibial loosening. Therefore, the following study was designed to determine (1) what is the cement mantle thickness in patients that develop aseptic tibial loosening, and (2) is there a difference in cement mantle thickness based on the interface of failure?\n\n\nMETHOD\nThis retrospective cohort included 216 patients revised for aseptic tibial loosening. Patient demographics, operative data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. A preoperative radiographic assessment was performed to determine the interface of failure and the thickness of the cement mantle using the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System zones.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe average patient age was 65 years and body mass index was 33.7 kg/m2. 203 patients demonstrated radiographic failure at the implant-cement interface and 13 patients demonstrated failure at the cement-bone interface. The average cement mantle thickness of each radiographic zone for the entire cohort on the AP and lateral views was 4.4 and 4.5 mm, respectively. The average cement mantle thickness of patients that developed failure at the implant-cement interface was significantly greater than patients that failed at the cement-bone interface in each radiographic zone (p < 0.001).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nPatients that develop implant loosening at the cement-bone interface were noted to have a significantly decreased cement mantle compared to patients that failed at the implant-cement interface. Methods for decreasing tibial implant loosening should likely focus on improving the fixation at the implant-cement interface.","PeriodicalId":22205,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of knee surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of knee surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4125881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

BACKGROUND Aseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee replacement is one of the leading causes of long-term failure. Cement mantle thickness has been implicated as a source of aseptic tibial loosening. Therefore, the following study was designed to determine (1) what is the cement mantle thickness in patients that develop aseptic tibial loosening, and (2) is there a difference in cement mantle thickness based on the interface of failure? METHOD This retrospective cohort included 216 patients revised for aseptic tibial loosening. Patient demographics, operative data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. A preoperative radiographic assessment was performed to determine the interface of failure and the thickness of the cement mantle using the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System zones. RESULTS The average patient age was 65 years and body mass index was 33.7 kg/m2. 203 patients demonstrated radiographic failure at the implant-cement interface and 13 patients demonstrated failure at the cement-bone interface. The average cement mantle thickness of each radiographic zone for the entire cohort on the AP and lateral views was 4.4 and 4.5 mm, respectively. The average cement mantle thickness of patients that developed failure at the implant-cement interface was significantly greater than patients that failed at the cement-bone interface in each radiographic zone (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Patients that develop implant loosening at the cement-bone interface were noted to have a significantly decreased cement mantle compared to patients that failed at the implant-cement interface. Methods for decreasing tibial implant loosening should likely focus on improving the fixation at the implant-cement interface.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
水泥膜厚度是初次全膝关节置换术后无菌性胫骨松动的主要原因吗?
背景:原发性全膝关节置换术后无菌性胫骨松动是导致长期手术失败的主要原因之一。骨水泥套厚度被认为是无菌性胫骨松动的一个原因。因此,下面的研究旨在确定(1)无菌性胫骨松动患者的水泥套厚度是多少,(2)基于失效界面的水泥套厚度是否存在差异?方法回顾性研究216例无菌性胫骨松动患者。记录患者人口统计、手术数据和临床结果。术前影像学评估使用膝关节学会影像学评估系统区确定失效界面和水泥套厚度。结果患者平均年龄65岁,体重指数33.7 kg/m2。203例患者在种植体-水泥界面表现出x线摄影失败,13例患者在水泥-骨界面表现出失败。整个队列在正位和侧位上每个x线摄影区域的平均水泥套厚度分别为4.4和4.5 mm。在每个x线成像区,在种植体-水泥界面发生失败的患者的平均水泥套厚度显著大于在水泥-骨界面发生失败的患者(p < 0.001)。结论:在骨水泥界面发生假体松动的患者与在骨水泥界面发生松动的患者相比,其骨水泥套明显减少。减少胫骨假体松动的方法应侧重于改善假体-骨水泥界面的固定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Kinematic comparison between the knee after bicruciate stabilized total knee arthroplasty and the native knee: A cadaveric study. Is cement mantle thickness a primary cause of aseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee arthroplasty? A new look at quadriceps tendon - Is it really composed of three layers? An analysis of the incidence, risk factors, and timing of development of cyclops lesions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Immunohistochemical analysis of the quadriceps femoris muscle before and after total knee arthroplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1