Cement penetration after patella venting

Femoral Cementation in Knee Arthroplasty-A Comparison of Three Cementing Techniques in a Sawbone Model Using the ATTUNE Knee

Femoral component loosening is a rare but severe complication in total knee arthroplasty. Former studies have repeatedly demonstrated radiolucent lines behind the ventral and dorsal anchoring shields of the femoral components, which has led us to investigate this matter further. Therefore, three different cementing techniques were tested in a group of nine Sawbone samples each. These differed in the amount of cement applied on the femoral component as well as in the pressure application. Computed tomography was performed to evaluate and classify the cement penetration into the bone adjacent to the prosthesis according to the zones defined by the Knee Society scoring system. The results show significantly deeper cement penetration in all zones when a pressurizer is used. In the other two groups, no significant difference in the dorsal bevel cement penetration was noted. Additionally, no difference in ventral and dorsal cement penetrations (Zones 1 and 4) was delineated. In contrast, there was a significant difference in both the ventral bevel (Zone 2) as well as the distal anchoring surface (Zones 5-7). The use of a pressurizer results in greater cement penetration into all anchoring areas. Completely covering the component back surface results in a significantly higher penetration, which is mainly due to differences in volume. These data show significantly improved cementation results when using a pressurizer. Whether this improves the biomechanical properties and ultimately the revision rate requires further investigation.

Bone cement penetration pattern and primary stability testing in keeled and pegged glenoid components

BACKGROUND

It has been proposed that bone mineral density has an influence on cement penetration in hip and knee arthroplasty. The hypotheses of this study were that: 1) there is a negative correlation between bone mineral density (BMD) and cement penetration in cemented glenoid components; and 2) that implant design has an influence on cement penetration into the glenoid bone.

METHODS

BMD of 10 pairs of fresh frozen scapulas was measured. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans in 3 different sections were analyzed after implantation of keeled and pegged glenoid components using a 3(rd)-generation cementing technique with a vacuum mixing system. Cement penetration was analyzed and correlated with BMD. Pull-out strength testing was performed to analyze primary stability.

RESULTS

The overall peak BMD was 0.6 [g/cm(2)] (range, 0.33-0.98). A strong negative correlation between BMD and mean cement penetration was found for the peg (R(2) = -.83; P < .003) and for the keel group (R(2) = -.81; P < .005). Mean cement penetration was 78.4 mm(2) (range, 60.6-94.2) in the keel and 113.9 mm(2) (range, 78.2-143.4) in the peg group (P < .0001). In all cases, the components were pulled out of the cement mantle, whereas the bone-cement interfaces remained intact. The mean pull-out strength was 1093N (764-1343N) for keeled and 884N (650-1264N) for pegged components (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

A modern cementing technique, leading to a deep bonding between bone and cement, is crucial to prevent loosening of glenoid components. The findings of this study might help us to better understand the results of follow-up studies of cemented glenoid implants. Our results could be helpful for the choice of implants in patients with poor bone quality like osteoporosis or rheumatoid arthritis.