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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Efe, Turgay, Figiel, Jens, Sibbert, David, Fuchs-Winkelmann, Susanne, Tibesku, Carsten O, Timmesfeld, Nina, Paletta, Jürgen RJR, Skwara, Adrian
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