Cargando…
Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study
BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 30 tibia specimens were matched into three groups (10 each). In all cases...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-6 |
_version_ | 1782217368342102016 |
---|---|
author | Efe, Turgay Figiel, Jens Sibbert, David Fuchs-Winkelmann, Susanne Tibesku, Carsten O Timmesfeld, Nina Paletta, Jürgen RJR Skwara, Adrian |
author_facet | Efe, Turgay Figiel, Jens Sibbert, David Fuchs-Winkelmann, Susanne Tibesku, Carsten O Timmesfeld, Nina Paletta, Jürgen RJR Skwara, Adrian |
author_sort | Efe, Turgay |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 30 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. RESULTS: On 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. CONCLUSIONS: Cement technique and type do not influence tibial bone loss in simulated revision surgery of the tibial component in knee arthroplasty. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3224366 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32243662011-11-27 Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study Efe, Turgay Figiel, Jens Sibbert, David Fuchs-Winkelmann, Susanne Tibesku, Carsten O Timmesfeld, Nina Paletta, Jürgen RJR Skwara, Adrian BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 30 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. RESULTS: On 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. CONCLUSIONS: Cement technique and type do not influence tibial bone loss in simulated revision surgery of the tibial component in knee arthroplasty. BioMed Central 2011-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3224366/ /pubmed/21219621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-6 Text en Copyright ©2011 Efe et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Efe, Turgay Figiel, Jens Sibbert, David Fuchs-Winkelmann, Susanne Tibesku, Carsten O Timmesfeld, Nina Paletta, Jürgen RJR Skwara, Adrian Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study |
title | Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study |
title_full | Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study |
title_fullStr | Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study |
title_full_unstemmed | Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study |
title_short | Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study |
title_sort | revision of tibial tka components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21219621 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT efeturgay revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy AT figieljens revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy AT sibbertdavid revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy AT fuchswinkelmannsusanne revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy AT tibeskucarsteno revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy AT timmesfeldnina revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy AT palettajurgenrjr revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy AT skwaraadrian revisionoftibialtkacomponentsbonelossisindependentofcementingtypeandtechniqueaninvitrocadaverstudy |