Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Moderne Zementiertechnik der dritten Generation in der Knie- und Hüftendoprothetik

The third-generation modern cementing technique in hip and knee arthroplasty

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Die Orthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Implantatlockerung ist der häufigste Grund für Revisionseingriffe.

Fragestellung

Beitrag der modernen Zementiertechnik zur langfristigen Stabilität eines Implantats.

Material und Methode

Auswertung der verfügbaren Evidenzen zur modernen Zementiertechnik.

Ergebnisse

Die moderne Zementiertechnik in der Hüftendoprothetik gilt als etabliert und führt zu optimalen Zementierergebnissen. In der Knieendoprothetik gibt es ebenfalls konkrete Empfehlungen, darunter die intensive Reinigung des Knochenbetts, Anmischen des Knochenzements unter Vakuum und Applikation des Knochenzements auf das Implantat und den Knochen.

Schlussfolgerungen

Die Verwendung der modernen Zementiertechnik in Knie- und Hüftendoprothetik erleichtert das Zementieren, erhöht die Sicherheit und minimiert das Risiko für mechanische Lockerungen.

Abstract

Background

Implant loosening is the most common reason for revision surgery.

Objectives

Contribution of modern cementing technique to the long-term stability of an implant.

Methods

Evaluation of the available evidence on modern cementing technique.

Results

Modern cementing technique in hip arthroplasty is considered established and leads to better cementing results. In knee arthroplasty, there are also specific recommendations, including intensive cleaning of the bone bed, mixing of bone cement under vacuum and application of bone cement to the implant and the bone.

Conclusions

The use of modern cementing technique in hip and knee arthroplasty facilitates cementing, increases safety, and minimizes the risk of mechanical loosening.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7
Abb. 8
Abb. 9

Abbreviations

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

EPRD :

Endoprothesenregister Deutschland

HV :

Hochviskos

ISO :

Internationale Organisation für Normung

PMMA :

Polymethylmethacrylat

Literatur

  1. Billi F, Kavanaugh A, Schmalzried H et al (2019) Techniques for improving the initial strength of the tibial tray-cement interface bond. Bone Joint J 101:53–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bökeler U, Bühler A, Eschbach D et al (2022) The influence of a modified 3rd generation cementation technique and vaccum mixing of bone cement on the bone cement implantation syndrome (BCIS) in geriatric patients with cemented hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fractures. Medicina (Kaunas) 58(11):1587. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58111587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boruah S, Chen AF, Muratoglu OK et al (2022) Does bone penetration of cement differ by cement type and application time-point? Med Eng Phys 101:103768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Breusch S, Malchau H (2006) The well-cemented total hip arthroplasty. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, ISBN: 978-3-540-24197-3

    Google Scholar 

  5. Donaldson AJ, Thomson HE, Harper NJ et al (2009) Bone cement implantation syndrome. Br J Anaesth 102(1):12–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunne N, Orr J (2001) Influence of mixing techniques on the physical properties of acrylic bone cement. Biomaterials 22(13):1819–1826

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (2022) Jahresbericht

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hampton CB, Berliner ZP, Nguyen JT et al (2020) Aseptic loosening at the tibia in total knee arthroplasty: a function of cement mantle quality? J Arthroplasty 35(6):S190–S196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hansen E, Kühn K‑D (2022) Essentials of cemented knee arthroplasty. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, ISBN: 978-3-662-63112-6

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Hargrove R, Ridgeway S, Russell R et al (2006) Does pulse lavage reduce hip hemiarthroplasty infection rates? J Hosp Infect 62(4):446–449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Helwig P, Konstantinidis L, Hirschmüller A et al (2013) Tibial cleaning method for cemented total knee arthroplasty: an experimental study. Indian J Orthop 47(1):18–22

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Irmola T, Ponkilainen V, Mäkelä KT et al (2021) Association between fixation type and revision risk in total knee arthroplasty patients aged 65 years and older: a cohort study of 265,877 patients from the nordic arthroplasty register association 2000–2016. Acta Orthop 92(1):91–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Jelecevic J, Maidanjuk S, Leithner A et al (2014) Methyl methacrylate levels in orthopedic surgery: comparison of two conventional vacuum mixing systems. Ann Occup Hyg 58(4):493–500

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karpiński R, Szabelski J, Maksymiuk J (2019) Effect of physiological fluids contamination on selected mechanical properties of acrylate bone cement. Materials 12(23):3963

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Khanuja HS, Mekkawy KL, MacMahon A et al (2022) Revisiting cemented femoral fixation in hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 104(11):1024–1033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kühn K‑D (2014) PMMA cements. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, ISBN: 978-3-642-41535-7

    Google Scholar 

  17. Li C, Mason J, Yakimicki D (2004) Thermal characterization of PMMA-based bone cement curing. J Mater Sci Mater Med 15(1):85–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lutz MJ, Pincus PF, Whitehouse SL et al (2009) The effect of cement gun and cement syringe use on the tibial cement mantle in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24(3):461–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matthews JJ, Ball L, Blake SM et al (2009) Combined syringe cement pressurisation and intra-osseous suction: an effective technique in total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 75(5):637–641

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Miller MA, Terbush MJ, Goodheart JR et al (2014) Increased initial cement-bone interlock correlates with reduced total knee arthroplasty micro-motion following in vivo service. J Biomech 47(10):2460–2466

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Perez Mañanes R, MArtin Vaquero J, Villanueva Martínez M (2011) Influence of the fixing technique on the quality of the cement mantle in knee arthroplasty. Experimental study on a synthetic model. Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología 55(1):39–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Randall DJ, Anderson MB, Gililland JM et al (2019) A potential need for surgeon consensus: cementation techniques for total knee arthroplasty in orthopedic implant manufacturers’ guidelines lack consistency. J Orthop Surg 27(3):2309499019878258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rassir R, Schuiling M, Sierevelt IN et al (2021) What are the frequency, related mortality, and factors associated with bone cement implantation syndrome in arthroplasty surgery? Clin Orthop Relat Res 479(4):755–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Refsum AM, Nguyen UV, Gjertsen J‑E et al (2019) Cementing technique for primary knee arthroplasty: a scoping review. Acta Orthop 90(6):582–589

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C et al (2014) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today—has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty 29(9):1774–1778

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sigmund IK, Gamper J, Antoni A et al (2018) Mixing technique of PMMA—bone cement determines the ideal insertion time point in cemented arthroplasty. J Surg 9(12) https://doi.org/10.29011/2575-9760.001153

  27. Skwara A, Figiel J, Knott T et al (2009) Primary stability of tibial components in TKA: in vitro comparison of two cementing techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17(10):1199–1205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Sundfeldt M, Carlsson LV, Johansson CB et al (2006) Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: a review of different theories. Acta Orthop 77(2):177–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Takahashi E, Kaneuji A, Tsuda R et al (2017) The influence of cement thickness on stem subsidence and cement creep in a collarless polished tapered stem: when are thick cement mantles detrimental? Bone Joint Res 6(5):351–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Trela-Larsen L, Sayers A, Blom AW et al (2018) The association between cement type and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in primary total hip replacement. Acta Orthop 89(1):40–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vaninbroukx M, Labey L, Innocenti B et al (2009) Cementing the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: which technique is the best? Knee 16(4):265–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vanlommel J, Luyckx JP, Labey L et al (2011) Cementing the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty: which technique is the best? J Arthroplasty 26(3):492–496

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang JS, Franzén H, Jonsson E et al (1993) Porosity of bone cement reduced by mixing and collecting under vacuum. Acta Orthop Scand 64(2):143–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Whitehouse MR, Atwal NS, Pabbruwe M et al (2014) Osteonecrosis with the use of polymethylmethacrylate cement for hip replacement: thermal-induced damage evidenced in vivo by decreased osteocyte viability. Eur Cell Mater 27:50–62 (discussion 62–3)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Heraeus Medical GmbH, Philipp-Reis-Str. 8/13, 61273, Wehrheim, Deutschland

    Martina Humez & Klaus-Dieter Kühn

  2. Klinik für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Bonn, Deutschland

    Frank Sebastian Fröschen & Dieter Christian Wirtz

  3. Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Medizinische Universität Graz, Graz, Österreich

    Klaus-Dieter Kühn

Authors
  1. Martina Humez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank Sebastian Fröschen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dieter Christian Wirtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Klaus-Dieter Kühn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Humez.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Humez ist Mitarbeiterin der Heraeus Medical GmbH, ebenso K.-D. Kühn. F.S. Fröschen, D.C. Wirtz und K.-D. Kühn erklären, dass sie keinen Interessenkonflikt bezüglich dieses Artikels haben und ihren Beitrag aus universitären Kenntnissen eingebracht haben.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autor/-innen keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

figure qr

QR-Code scannen & Beitrag online lesen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Humez, M., Fröschen, F.S., Wirtz, D.C. et al. Moderne Zementiertechnik der dritten Generation in der Knie- und Hüftendoprothetik. Orthopädie 52, 968–980 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-023-04446-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-023-04446-7

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation