Cargando…

Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques

BACKGROUND: The majority of knee endoprostheses are cemented. In an earlier study the effects of different cementing techniques on cement penetration were evaluated using a Sawbone model. In this study we used a human cadaver model to study the effect of different cementing techniques on relative mo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schonhoff, Mareike, Beckmann, Nicholas A., Schwarze, Martin, Eissler, Marvin, Kretzer, J. Philippe, Renkawitz, Tobias, Jaeger, Sebastian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9863212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36670400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06151-0
_version_ 1784875279087304704
author Schonhoff, Mareike
Beckmann, Nicholas A.
Schwarze, Martin
Eissler, Marvin
Kretzer, J. Philippe
Renkawitz, Tobias
Jaeger, Sebastian
author_facet Schonhoff, Mareike
Beckmann, Nicholas A.
Schwarze, Martin
Eissler, Marvin
Kretzer, J. Philippe
Renkawitz, Tobias
Jaeger, Sebastian
author_sort Schonhoff, Mareike
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The majority of knee endoprostheses are cemented. In an earlier study the effects of different cementing techniques on cement penetration were evaluated using a Sawbone model. In this study we used a human cadaver model to study the effect of different cementing techniques on relative motion between the implant and the femoral shaft component under dynamic loading. METHODS: Two different cementing techniques were tested in a group of 15 pairs of human fresh frozen legs. In one group a conventional cementation technique was used and, in another group, cementation was done using a pressurizing technique. Under dynamic loading that simulated real life conditions relative motion at the bone-implant interface were studied at 20 degrees and 50 degrees flexion. RESULTS: In both scenarios, the relative motion anterior was significantly increased by pressure application. Distally, it was the same with higher loads. No significant difference could be measured posteriorly at 20°. At 50° flexion, however, pressurization reduced the posterior relative motion significantly at each load level. CONCLUSION: The use of the pressurizer does not improve the overall fixation compared to an adequate manual cement application. The change depends on the loading, flexion angle and varies in its proportion in between the interface zones.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9863212
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98632122023-01-22 Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques Schonhoff, Mareike Beckmann, Nicholas A. Schwarze, Martin Eissler, Marvin Kretzer, J. Philippe Renkawitz, Tobias Jaeger, Sebastian BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: The majority of knee endoprostheses are cemented. In an earlier study the effects of different cementing techniques on cement penetration were evaluated using a Sawbone model. In this study we used a human cadaver model to study the effect of different cementing techniques on relative motion between the implant and the femoral shaft component under dynamic loading. METHODS: Two different cementing techniques were tested in a group of 15 pairs of human fresh frozen legs. In one group a conventional cementation technique was used and, in another group, cementation was done using a pressurizing technique. Under dynamic loading that simulated real life conditions relative motion at the bone-implant interface were studied at 20 degrees and 50 degrees flexion. RESULTS: In both scenarios, the relative motion anterior was significantly increased by pressure application. Distally, it was the same with higher loads. No significant difference could be measured posteriorly at 20°. At 50° flexion, however, pressurization reduced the posterior relative motion significantly at each load level. CONCLUSION: The use of the pressurizer does not improve the overall fixation compared to an adequate manual cement application. The change depends on the loading, flexion angle and varies in its proportion in between the interface zones. BioMed Central 2023-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9863212/ /pubmed/36670400 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06151-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Schonhoff, Mareike
Beckmann, Nicholas A.
Schwarze, Martin
Eissler, Marvin
Kretzer, J. Philippe
Renkawitz, Tobias
Jaeger, Sebastian
Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques
title Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques
title_full Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques
title_fullStr Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques
title_full_unstemmed Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques
title_short Is TKA femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques
title_sort is tka femoral implant stability improved by pressure applied cement? a comparison of 2 cementing techniques
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9863212/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36670400
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06151-0
work_keys_str_mv AT schonhoffmareike istkafemoralimplantstabilityimprovedbypressureappliedcementacomparisonof2cementingtechniques
AT beckmannnicholasa istkafemoralimplantstabilityimprovedbypressureappliedcementacomparisonof2cementingtechniques
AT schwarzemartin istkafemoralimplantstabilityimprovedbypressureappliedcementacomparisonof2cementingtechniques
AT eisslermarvin istkafemoralimplantstabilityimprovedbypressureappliedcementacomparisonof2cementingtechniques
AT kretzerjphilippe istkafemoralimplantstabilityimprovedbypressureappliedcementacomparisonof2cementingtechniques
AT renkawitztobias istkafemoralimplantstabilityimprovedbypressureappliedcementacomparisonof2cementingtechniques
AT jaegersebastian istkafemoralimplantstabilityimprovedbypressureappliedcementacomparisonof2cementingtechniques