The Journal of arthroplasty · 2020
Micromotion Analysis of Various Tibial Constructs in Moderate Tibial Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alipit Vincent, Kirk Amanda, Scholl Daniel, Schmidig Gregg, Springer Bryan D, Lee Gwo-Chin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare the micromotion of various tibial reconstruction strategies including short cemented and long cementless stems with or without metaphyseal augmentation.
METHODS: A moderate tibial bone defect was milled into dual density polyurethane test blocks. Mechanical testing was performed on 4 test constructs: (1) short cemented stem (75-mm total length) alone; (2) short cemented stem with a symmetric metaphyseal cone; (3) a press-fit (175-mm total length) diaphyseal engaging tibial construct without a cone, and (4) the same press-fit tibial construct with a metaphyseal cone augment. Micromotion of the baseplate/cone construct with respect to the tibia block was measured during a stair descent loading profile for 10,000 cycles. The peak-to-peak micromotion of these various tibial constructs was compared. Unpaired t-tests were used to evaluate differences in peak-to-peak micromotion among the various tibial constructs tested. An analysis of variance was performed for final validation.
RESULTS: The cemented short stem demonstrated similar varus/valgus displacement, internal/external rotation, compression, and lift-off micromotion values under loading compared to a cementless long stem. A tibial cone improved compression and lift-off micromotion for both cemented and cementless constructs. A short 50-mm cemented stem with a cone demonstrated a lower micromotion at the anterior SI location compared to a press-fit 150-mm cementless stem without a tibial cone.
CONCLUSIONS: A short cemented tibial component with a cone achieved similar micromotion during simulated stair descent compared to a cementless diaphyseal press-fit implant in cases of moderate tibial defects.
METHODS: A moderate tibial bone defect was milled into dual density polyurethane test blocks. Mechanical testing was performed on 4 test constructs: (1) short cemented stem (75-mm total length) alone; (2) short cemented stem with a symmetric metaphyseal cone; (3) a press-fit (175-mm total length) diaphyseal engaging tibial construct without a cone, and (4) the same press-fit tibial construct with a metaphyseal cone augment. Micromotion of the baseplate/cone construct with respect to the tibia block was measured during a stair descent loading profile for 10,000 cycles. The peak-to-peak micromotion of these various tibial constructs was compared. Unpaired t-tests were used to evaluate differences in peak-to-peak micromotion among the various tibial constructs tested. An analysis of variance was performed for final validation.
RESULTS: The cemented short stem demonstrated similar varus/valgus displacement, internal/external rotation, compression, and lift-off micromotion values under loading compared to a cementless long stem. A tibial cone improved compression and lift-off micromotion for both cemented and cementless constructs. A short 50-mm cemented stem with a cone demonstrated a lower micromotion at the anterior SI location compared to a press-fit 150-mm cementless stem without a tibial cone.
CONCLUSIONS: A short cemented tibial component with a cone achieved similar micromotion during simulated stair descent compared to a cementless diaphyseal press-fit implant in cases of moderate tibial defects.