Literature DB >> 23283372

The effect of bone lavage on femoral cement penetration and interface temperature during Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement.

J B Seeger1, S Jaeger, R G Bitsch, G Mohr, E Röhner, M Clarius.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Aseptic loosening is the most common cause for revision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and is associated with failure of the bone-cement or cement-implant interface. The purpose of the present study was to analyze different bone lavage techniques for the bone-cement and cement-implant interfaces of the femoral component and to study the effect of these techniques on cement penetration and on interface temperature.
METHODS: In an experimental cadaver study, Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was performed in twenty-four matched-paired knees to study the effect of pulsed lavage compared with syringe lavage on femoral cement penetration and interface temperature. Interface temperature, cement penetration pressure, and ligament tension forces were measured continuously during the procedure, and cement penetration was determined by performing sagittal bone cuts.
RESULTS: Cleansing the femoral bone stock with use of pulsed lavage (Group B) led to increased femoral cement penetration (mean, 1428 mm²; 95% confidence interval, 1348 to 1508 mm²) compared with syringe lavage (Group A) (mean, 1128 mm²; 95% confidence interval, 1038 to 1219 mm²) (p < 0.001). Interface temperature was higher in Group B (mean 22.6°C; 95% confidence interval, 20.5°C to 24.1°C) than in Group A (mean, 21.0°C; 95% confidence interval, 19.4°C to 23.0°C) (p = 0.028), but temperatures never reached critical values for thermal damage to the bone.
CONCLUSIONS: Pulsed lavage leads to an increased femoral cement penetration without the risk of heat necrosis at the bone-cement interface.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23283372     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01116

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  7 in total

Review 1.  [Revision after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  G Mohr; J Martin; M Clarius
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Does negative pressure intrusion cementing technique improve the cement penetration under the tibial component? A comparative retrospective study.

Authors:  Giorgio Cacciola; Federico De Meo; Pietro Cavaliere
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-11-27

3.  Influence of bone density on morphologic cement penetration in minimally invasive tibial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an in vitro cadaver study.

Authors:  Christian B Scheele; Matthias F Pietschmann; Christian Schröder; Igor Lazic; Thomas M Grupp; Peter E Müller
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  Polymethyl methacrylate cure time in simulated in vivo total knee arthroplasty versus in vitro conditions.

Authors:  Daniel A Funk; Quang-Viet Nguyen; Michael Swank
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-10-20       Impact factor: 2.359

5.  Metal backed fixed-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties using minimal invasive surgery: a promising outcome analysis of 132 cases.

Authors:  Joel Baur; Lukas Zwicky; Michael Tobias Hirschmann; Thomas Ilchmann; Martin Clauss
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Femoral component failure in the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case report.

Authors:  Kirsten D S Argelo; Mick A Burger; Marco J M Hoozemans; Olivier P P Temmerman
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2014-12-11

7.  Thermal Analysis of the Tibial Cement Interface with Modern Cementing Technique.

Authors:  Christopher J Vertullo; David Zbrojkiewicz; Frank Vizesi; William R Walsh
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2016-03-22
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.