The technique of cement application has no influence on cement intrusion in total knee arthroplasty: randomized study comparing three different techniques

Comparable bone penetration between antibiotic-loaded and plain bone cement in total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

One of the main concerns around the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) is the potential reduction in the mechanical properties of the cement when antibiotics are admixed. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a difference between plain cement and ALBC in terms of radiological intrusion into the bone in total knee arthroplasties (TKAs).

METHODS

Prospective randomized study of 80 consecutive patients who underwent TKA. Depending on the cement used, patients were divided into two groups by a computer-generated randomization programme: the cement without antibiotic (Group 1) or the ALBC (Group 2). Cement intrusion was measured in postoperative radiographs in eight different regions in the tibial component and six regions in the femoral component.

RESULTS

The average cement intrusion was similar in both groups (p = nonsignificance [n.s.]). Group 1 (plain cement) had an average cement intrusion in the femur of 1.4 mm (±0.4) and 2.4 mm (±0.4) in the tibia. In Group 2 (ALBC), the average cement intrusion in the femur came to 1.6 (±0.5) and 2.4 mm (±0.5) in the tibia. In 80% of the patients, the cement intrusion in the tibia averaged a minimum of 2 mm, being similar in both groups (p = n.s.).

CONCLUSION

There are no differences in bone intrusion when comparing plain cement to ALBC. Therefore, the use of ALBC in primary TKA may be indicated, achieving optimal bone penetration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Bone Cement in Adult Hip and Knee Reconstruction: A Review of Commercially Available Options and Clinical Outcomes

Polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is used extensively in hip and knee arthroplasty. A thorough understanding of the basic chemistry underlying PMMA is important for orthopaedic surgeons because this underscores the specific way bone cement is used during surgery. Recently, clinical research has shed light on the various types of PMMA regarding the viscosity of the mixture and the effect of cement additives. These variations in composition may alter the clinical efficacy of implanted bone cement in hip and knee arthroplasty. Understanding these key differences will allow the surgeon to tailor the PMMA composition as needed to maximize outcomes of hip and knee arthroplasty. This review will summarize the preclinical feature of PMMA, evaluate current and past commercially available bone cement options, analyze preclinical results and clinical outcomes of various bone cement types, and highlight future areas of research.

No Difference in Revision Rate Between Low Viscosity and High Viscosity Cement Used in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Loosening remains one of the most common reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement viscosity has a potential role in reducing revision rates for loosening. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome for loosening of the 5 most used cemented knee prostheses by constraint type, based on the cement viscosity type used.

METHODS

There were 214,708 TKA procedures performed between 1999 and 2020 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using the 5 most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot design cemented tibial components. Only procedures with a cemented tibial component were included. Outcomes for two different cement viscosities, 140,060 high viscosity and 74,648 low viscosity cement, were compared for each fixation type within each of the three stability groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in a risk of all-cause revision when high viscosity cement was used compared to low viscosity cement for minimally stabilized prostheses (hazards ratio [HR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.99-1.15], P = .09), posterior stabilized prostheses (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95-1.11], P = .53), and medial pivot design prostheses (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.80-1.41], P = .67). No difference was observed between cement viscosity types for any of the prosthesis constraint types when aseptic loosening was assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in the risk of revision for any reason, or for loosening, with cement viscosity for the most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot TKA. The role of cement viscosity in the risk of TKA revision remains unclear and further research is required.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Retrospective comparative study.