Cargando…

Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments

OBJECTIVES: In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Beckmann, N. A., Bitsch, R. G., Gondan, M., Schonhoff, M., Jaeger, S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2018
Materias:
Hip
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29922446
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1
_version_ 1783329166623506432
author Beckmann, N. A.
Bitsch, R. G.
Gondan, M.
Schonhoff, M.
Jaeger, S.
author_facet Beckmann, N. A.
Bitsch, R. G.
Gondan, M.
Schonhoff, M.
Jaeger, S.
author_sort Beckmann, N. A.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. METHODS: A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN). RESULTS: Screw fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone. Cite this article: N. A. Beckmann, R. G. Bitsch, M. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, S. Jaeger. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:282–288. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5987680
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59876802018-06-19 Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments Beckmann, N. A. Bitsch, R. G. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, M. Jaeger, S. Bone Joint Res Hip OBJECTIVES: In order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined. METHODS: A total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN). RESULTS: Screw fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Cement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone. Cite this article: N. A. Beckmann, R. G. Bitsch, M. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, S. Jaeger. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:282–288. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1. 2018-05-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5987680/ /pubmed/29922446 http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1 Text en © 2018 Author(s) et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions licence (CC-BY-NC), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, but not for commercial gain, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Hip
Beckmann, N. A.
Bitsch, R. G.
Gondan, M.
Schonhoff, M.
Jaeger, S.
Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments
title Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments
title_full Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments
title_fullStr Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments
title_short Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments
title_sort comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments
topic Hip
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987680/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29922446
http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1
work_keys_str_mv AT beckmannna comparisonofthestabilityofthreefixationtechniquesbetweenporousmetalacetabularcomponentsandaugments
AT bitschrg comparisonofthestabilityofthreefixationtechniquesbetweenporousmetalacetabularcomponentsandaugments
AT gondanm comparisonofthestabilityofthreefixationtechniquesbetweenporousmetalacetabularcomponentsandaugments
AT schonhoffm comparisonofthestabilityofthreefixationtechniquesbetweenporousmetalacetabularcomponentsandaugments
AT jaegers comparisonofthestabilityofthreefixationtechniquesbetweenporousmetalacetabularcomponentsandaugments