Cargando…

Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants

PURPOSE: To analyze the thickness of cement mantle at the bone cement interface in knees with closed and open box designs in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty cases of TKA were performed from October 2013 to March 2014. The average age of the patients was 68.4 years. All p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ko, Dong Oh, Lee, Song, Kim, Kyung Tae, Lee, Jae Il, Kim, Jin Woo, Yi, Seong Min
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Knee Society 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5450579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28545176
http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.16.013
_version_ 1783240008462761984
author Ko, Dong Oh
Lee, Song
Kim, Kyung Tae
Lee, Jae Il
Kim, Jin Woo
Yi, Seong Min
author_facet Ko, Dong Oh
Lee, Song
Kim, Kyung Tae
Lee, Jae Il
Kim, Jin Woo
Yi, Seong Min
author_sort Ko, Dong Oh
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To analyze the thickness of cement mantle at the bone cement interface in knees with closed and open box designs in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty cases of TKA were performed from October 2013 to March 2014. The average age of the patients was 68.4 years. All patients were women and they were divided into two groups: group I with a closed box implant (PS150 RP, n=40) and group II with an open box implant (LPS-Flex, n=40). We measured the cement mantle thickness at the bone cement interface from the distal femur and proximal tibia. If the thickness was >1 mm, it was considered an outlier. RESULTS: The mean cement mantle thickness at the interface was 1.4 mm in the distal femur and 0.8 mm in the proximal tibia. The value exceed 1 mm in 40 cases (50%) in the distal femur and in 6 cases (7.5%) in the proximal tibia (p<0.001). The mean cement mantle thickness measured in the distal femur was 1.7 mm in group I and 1.0 mm in group II. The value exceed 1 mm in 32 cases (80%) in group I and in 8 cases (20%) in group II (p<0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The cement mantle at the interface was thicker in the knees with the closed box implant than those with the open box implant in TKA, especially in the distal femoral area. A thick cement mantle at the interface should be avoided because it affects the gap balance. In case of using a closed box implant in TKA, cementing should be performed with extra care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5450579
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Korean Knee Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54505792017-06-02 Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants Ko, Dong Oh Lee, Song Kim, Kyung Tae Lee, Jae Il Kim, Jin Woo Yi, Seong Min Knee Surg Relat Res Original Article PURPOSE: To analyze the thickness of cement mantle at the bone cement interface in knees with closed and open box designs in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty cases of TKA were performed from October 2013 to March 2014. The average age of the patients was 68.4 years. All patients were women and they were divided into two groups: group I with a closed box implant (PS150 RP, n=40) and group II with an open box implant (LPS-Flex, n=40). We measured the cement mantle thickness at the bone cement interface from the distal femur and proximal tibia. If the thickness was >1 mm, it was considered an outlier. RESULTS: The mean cement mantle thickness at the interface was 1.4 mm in the distal femur and 0.8 mm in the proximal tibia. The value exceed 1 mm in 40 cases (50%) in the distal femur and in 6 cases (7.5%) in the proximal tibia (p<0.001). The mean cement mantle thickness measured in the distal femur was 1.7 mm in group I and 1.0 mm in group II. The value exceed 1 mm in 32 cases (80%) in group I and in 8 cases (20%) in group II (p<0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The cement mantle at the interface was thicker in the knees with the closed box implant than those with the open box implant in TKA, especially in the distal femoral area. A thick cement mantle at the interface should be avoided because it affects the gap balance. In case of using a closed box implant in TKA, cementing should be performed with extra care. Korean Knee Society 2017-06 2017-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5450579/ /pubmed/28545176 http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.16.013 Text en Copyright © 2017 Korean Knee Society This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Ko, Dong Oh
Lee, Song
Kim, Kyung Tae
Lee, Jae Il
Kim, Jin Woo
Yi, Seong Min
Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants
title Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants
title_full Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants
title_fullStr Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants
title_full_unstemmed Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants
title_short Cement Mantle Thickness at the Bone Cement Interface in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison of PS150 RP and LPS-Flex Knee Implants
title_sort cement mantle thickness at the bone cement interface in total knee arthroplasty: comparison of ps150 rp and lps-flex knee implants
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5450579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28545176
http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.16.013
work_keys_str_mv AT kodongoh cementmantlethicknessatthebonecementinterfaceintotalkneearthroplastycomparisonofps150rpandlpsflexkneeimplants
AT leesong cementmantlethicknessatthebonecementinterfaceintotalkneearthroplastycomparisonofps150rpandlpsflexkneeimplants
AT kimkyungtae cementmantlethicknessatthebonecementinterfaceintotalkneearthroplastycomparisonofps150rpandlpsflexkneeimplants
AT leejaeil cementmantlethicknessatthebonecementinterfaceintotalkneearthroplastycomparisonofps150rpandlpsflexkneeimplants
AT kimjinwoo cementmantlethicknessatthebonecementinterfaceintotalkneearthroplastycomparisonofps150rpandlpsflexkneeimplants
AT yiseongmin cementmantlethicknessatthebonecementinterfaceintotalkneearthroplastycomparisonofps150rpandlpsflexkneeimplants