Cement debonding behaviors of the various tibial components of the ATTUNE knee system and its predecessors: us a cement-in-cement revision an alternative?
Background - Aseptic loosening remains one of the most common causes of revision of the tibial component for total knee arthroplasty. A stable bond between implant and cement is essential for appropriate long-term results. The aim of our in vitro study was to investigate the maximum failure load of...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
9 October 2021
|
| In: |
The knee
Year: 2021, Volume: 33, Pages: 185-192 |
| ISSN: | 1873-5800 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.knee.2021.09.010 |
| Online Access: | Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2021.09.010 Verlag, lizenzpflichtig, Volltext: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968016021002301 
|
| Author Notes: | Sebastian Jaeger, Marvin Eissler, Martin Schwarze, Mareike Schonhoff, Jan Philippe Kretzer, Rudi G. Bitsch |
| Summary: | Background - Aseptic loosening remains one of the most common causes of revision of the tibial component for total knee arthroplasty. A stable bond between implant and cement is essential for appropriate long-term results. The aim of our in vitro study was to investigate the maximum failure load of tibial ATTUNE prosthesis design alternatives compared with a previous design. In addition, cement-in-cement revision was considered as a potential strategy after tibial component debonding. - Methods - The experimental investigations of the maximum failure load of the implant-cement interface were performed under optimal conditions, without potential contamination. We compared the designs of the tibial components of the ATTUNE, ATTUNE S+ and P.F.C. Sigma. In addition, we investigated the cement-in-cement revision for the ATTUNE knee system replacing it with an ATTUNE S+. - Results - The maximum failure load showed no significant difference between P.F.C. Sigma and ATTUNE groups (P = 0.087), but there was a significant difference between the P.F.C. Sigma and the ATTUNE S+ groups (P < 0.001). The analysis also showed a significant difference (P < 0.001) between the ATTUNE and the ATTUNE S+ groups for the maximum failure load. The ATTUNE S+ cement-in-cement revision group showed a significant higher failure load (P < 0.001) compared with the P.F.C. Sigma and ATTUNE groups. No significant differences (P = 1.000) were found between the ATTUNE S+ cement-in-cement and ATTUNE S+ group. - Conclusion - Based on these results, we found no design-specific evidence of increased debonding risk with the ATTUNE and ATTUNE S+ components compared with the P.F.C Sigma. Furthermore, the cement-in-cement revision seems to be an alternative for the revision surgery. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Gesehen am 22.11.2021 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 1873-5800 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.knee.2021.09.010 |