Improving the cementation of the tibial component in knee arthroplasty

Aims The main objective of this study is to analyze the penetration of bone cement in four different full cementation techniques of the tibial tray. Methods In order to determine the best tibial tray cementation technique, we applied cement to 40 cryopreserved donor tibiae by four different techniques: 1) double-layer cementation of the tibial component and tibial bone with bone restrictor; 2) metallic cementation of the tibial component without bone restrictor; 3) bone cementation of the tibia with bone restrictor; and 4) superficial bone cementation of the tibia and metallic keel cementation of the tibial component without bone restrictor. We performed CT exams of all 40 subjects, and measured cement layer thickness at both levels of the resected surface of the epiphysis and the endomedular metaphyseal level. Results At the epiphyseal level, Technique 2 gave the greatest depth compared to the other investigated techniques. At the endomedular metaphyseal level, Technique 1 showed greater cement penetration than the other techniques. Conclusion The best metaphyseal cementation technique of the tibial component is bone cementation with cement restrictor. Additionally, if full tibial component cementation is to be done, the cement volume used should be about 40 g of cement, and not the usual 20 g. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):467–473.

Charnley femoral cemented stem with a permeable and resorbable cement restrictor and low-viscosity cement

Introduction: In 1979, in his first book dealing with low-friction arthroplasty (LFA), Charnley highlighted the use of a cement restrictor. Breusch and Malchau described in 2005 the “second-generation cementing technique.” The main objective of this study was to report on the clinical survival of 100 cases of Charnley femoral component implanted in 2007 and 2008 using a permeable and resorbable cement restrictor and a low-viscosity antibiotic-loaded cement. The secondary objectives were to analyze the complications and side effects and the accuracy of the device positioning. Material and methods: This was a monocentric retrospective review of a prospectively compiled database. Diaphyseal restrictor was biodegradable and permeable to gas, blood, and fluids to avoid intramedullary over pression during cementation. The cement was a low-viscosity antibiotic-loaded cement. Among 3555 patients, we selected the first continuous 100 cases of patients where we implanted the device. Survival probability was computed according to Kaplan–Meier method. Results: Mean follow-up was 6.55 ± 2.6 (range 1–11). Considering femoral component revision as the endpoint, survival rate was 100%. No patients died intraoperatively, none in the first month and the first year after surgery. No early periprosthetic fractures have been reported. Discussion: As described initially by Charnley, the use of a cement restrictor was highly recommended through the different generations of cementing techniques. Hypotensive episodes and cardiac arrest have been reported during cement insertion. In our series, we did not deplore any adverse effect related to the cementation. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a 100% survival rate of a cemented femoral component without adverse effects when using routinely a resorbable and permeable cement restrictor and a low-viscosity cement. Bone cement is still a fantastic ally for the surgeon and the patients.