The Journal of arthroplasty · 2021
Tourniquet Use Improves Cement Penetration and Reduces Radiolucent Line Progression at 5 Years After Total Knee Arthroplasty.
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.
Hegde Vishal, Bracey Daniel N, Johnson Roseann M, Dennis Douglas A, Jennings Jason M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although the effect of tourniquet use during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on functional outcomes is controversial, there are little data examining cement penetration and implant stability. This study examines the effect of tourniquet use on cement penetration and radiolucent line (RLL) progression.
METHODS: Patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty with a single surgeon, implant, and cement with minimum 5-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Tourniquet use was defined as 30 minutes minimum, while no tourniquet was 0 minutes. Patients were 1:1 matched (n = 61 per group) by age (±5), gender, body mass index (±5), and follow-up (±2 years). Cement penetration and RLL were measured on the tibia at 6 weeks, and RLL at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively using the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System.
RESULTS: Cement penetration was significantly increased in the tourniquet group in anterior-posterior zones 1 (2.16 vs 1.03 mm, P < .0005), 2 (2.23 vs 1.51 mm, P < .0005), and 5 (8.56 vs 6.3 mm, P = .009), and lateral zones 1 (2.89 vs 2.17 mm, P < .0005), 2 (2.86 vs 2.12 mm, P < .0005), 3P (3.99 vs 3.5 mm, P = .039), and 5 (8.18 vs 5.93 mm, P = .006). Cumulative cement penetration averaged 34.48 vs 43.33 mm in the tourniquet group (P < .005). Progression of RLL >2 mm was observed in 27.8% (17/61) vs 11.4% (7/61) of patients in the tourniquet group (P < .005). There were 2 failures for aseptic tibial loosening in the no tourniquet group.
CONCLUSION: Tourniquet use improves cement penetration and reduces RLL progression. Dryer surfaces during cementation may improve penetration, resulting in superior initial fixation strength and potentially reducing the long-term risk of aseptic loosening.
METHODS: Patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty with a single surgeon, implant, and cement with minimum 5-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Tourniquet use was defined as 30 minutes minimum, while no tourniquet was 0 minutes. Patients were 1:1 matched (n = 61 per group) by age (±5), gender, body mass index (±5), and follow-up (±2 years). Cement penetration and RLL were measured on the tibia at 6 weeks, and RLL at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively using the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System.
RESULTS: Cement penetration was significantly increased in the tourniquet group in anterior-posterior zones 1 (2.16 vs 1.03 mm, P < .0005), 2 (2.23 vs 1.51 mm, P < .0005), and 5 (8.56 vs 6.3 mm, P = .009), and lateral zones 1 (2.89 vs 2.17 mm, P < .0005), 2 (2.86 vs 2.12 mm, P < .0005), 3P (3.99 vs 3.5 mm, P = .039), and 5 (8.18 vs 5.93 mm, P = .006). Cumulative cement penetration averaged 34.48 vs 43.33 mm in the tourniquet group (P < .005). Progression of RLL >2 mm was observed in 27.8% (17/61) vs 11.4% (7/61) of patients in the tourniquet group (P < .005). There were 2 failures for aseptic tibial loosening in the no tourniquet group.
CONCLUSION: Tourniquet use improves cement penetration and reduces RLL progression. Dryer surfaces during cementation may improve penetration, resulting in superior initial fixation strength and potentially reducing the long-term risk of aseptic loosening.