Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 33, Issue 5, pp 1239–1242 | Cite as

Comparison of cementing techniques of the tibial component in total knee replacement

  • Tuuli SaariEmail author
  • Ming Guo Li
  • David Wood
  • Bo Nivbrant
Original Paper

Abstract

A few studies have shown that cementing the stem enhances fixation of the tibial baseplate in total knee replacement (TKR). Even the horizontal technique has been shown to provide good fixation. We used radiostereometry to study migration of the tibial component in 30 knees operated with Profix TKR. The knees were randomised for either complete (both under the baseplate and around the stem) or horizontal (only under the baseplate) cementing of the tibial component. At two years the tibial baseplate rotated externally a median of 0.18° in the uncemented stem group and internally a median of 0.23° in the cemented stem group. The tibial baseplate subsided 0.14 mm in the cemented stem group, and no translation was seen in the uncemented stem group. The differences in migration were small and probably without clinical significance. The findings do not favour either of the cementing techniques in TKR.

Keywords

Total Knee Replacement Tibial Component Cement Mantle Posterior Slope Stem Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Peu d’études ont démontré que la fixation cimentée de la queue améliorait la fixation du plateau tibial dans les prothèses totales du genou. Par ailleurs, les fixations horizontales ont également montré une bonne fixation. Nous avons utilisé la radiostéréométrie pour étudier la migration du composant tibial dans 30 genoux de type Profix. Les genoux ont été randomisés cimentation sous le plateau et autour de la queue ou cimentation horizontale uniquement sous le plateau. À 2 ans le plateau tibial présente une rotation externe de 0,18° dans les PTG avec une queue non cimentée et une rotation interne moyenne de 0,23° dans le groupe des queues cimentées. La base du plateau tibial s’enfonce de 0,14mm dans le groupe des queues cimentées et il n’y a pas de translation dans le groupe des queues non cimentées. En conclusion, la différence au niveau de la migration est minime et sans signification clinique. Cette étude ne permet pas de choisir dans les prothèses totales du genou l’une des deux techniques de cimentation.

Notes

Conflict of interest statement

The RSA examinations were supported by Smith & Nephew.

References

  1. 1.
    Albrektsson BEJ, Carlsson LV, Freeman MAR, Herberts P, Ryd L (1992) Proximally cemented versus uncemented Freeman-Samuelson knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomised study. J Bone Joint Surg Br 74:233–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bert JM, McShane M (1998) Is it necessary to cement the tibial stem in cemented total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop 35:73–78Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourne RB, Finlay JB (1986) The influence of tibial component intramedullary stems and implant-cortex contact on the strain distribution of the proximal tibia following total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 208:95–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlsson Å, Björkman A, Besjakov J, Önsten I (2005) Cemented tibial component fixation performs better than cementless fixation: a randomized radiostereometric study comparing porous-coated, hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components over 5 years. Acta Orthop 76:362–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Evald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hagsted B, Norman O, Ohlsson TH, Tjörnstadt B (1980) Technical accuracy in high tibial osteotomy for gonarthrosis. Acta Orthop Scand 51:963–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hyldahl H, Regnér L, Carlsson L, Kärrholm J, Weidenhielm L (2005) All-polyethylene vs. metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 2. Completely cemented components: MB not superior to AP components. Acta Orthop 76:778–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hyldahl H, Regnér L, Carlsson L, Kärrholm J, Weidenhielm L (2005) All-polyethylene vs. metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty-a randomized RSA study comparing early fixation of horizontally and completely cemented tibial components: part 1. Horizontally cemented components: AP better fixated than MB. Acta Orthop 76:769–777PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jazrawi LM, Bai B, Kummer FJ, Hiebert R, Stuchin SA (2001) The effect of stem modularity and mode of fixation on tibial component stability in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16:759–767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kolisek FR, Mont MA, Seyler TM, Marker DR, Jessup NM, Siddiqui JA, Monesmith E, Ulrich SD (2008) Total knee arthroplasty using cementless keels and cemented tibial trays: 10-year results. Int Orthop, Jan 9, Epub ahead of printGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luring C, Perlick L, Trepte C, Linhardt O, Perlick C, Plitz W, Grifka J (2006) Micromotion in cemented rotating platform total knee arthroplasty: cemented tibial stem versus hybrid fixation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126:45–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peters CL, Craig MA, Mohr RA, Bachus KN (2003) Tibial component fixation with cement: full- versus surface-cementation techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 409:158–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ryd L, Albrektsson BEJ, Carlsson L, Dansgard F, Herberts P, Lindstrand A, Regner L, Toksvig-Larsen S (1995) Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis as a predictor of mechanical loosening of knee prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:377–383PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seki T, Bourgeault ST, Chareancholvanich K, Lew W, Bechtold JE, Gustilo RB (1997) Does a central stem affect bone strain and the stability of a cemented tibial tray in primary and revision TKA? Trans Orthop Res Soc 22:6356Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Önsten I, Nordqvist A, Carlsson ÅS, Besjakov J, Shott S (1998) Hydroxyapatite augmentation of the porous coating improves fixation of tibial components. A randomised RSA study in 116 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:417–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tuuli Saari
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ming Guo Li
    • 2
  • David Wood
    • 2
  • Bo Nivbrant
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsSahlgrenska University Hospital/Mölndal HospitalMölndalSweden
  2. 2.Perth Orthopaedic InstituteUniversity of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations