The Knee · 2021
Cement debonding behaviors of the various tibial components of the ATTUNE knee system and its predecessors: Is a cement-in-cement revision an alternative?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jaeger Sebastian, Eissler Marvin, Schwarze Martin, Schonhoff Mareike, Kretzer Jan Philippe, Bitsch Rudi G
Аннотация
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.
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.