Aims. The aim of this study was to longitudinally compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) up to long-term follow-up, when using cemented keel, cemented peg, and hybrid cage peg glenoid components and the same humeral system. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed a multicentre, international clinical database of a single platform shoulder system to compare the short-, mid-, and long-term clinical outcomes associated with three designs of aTSA glenoid components: 294 cemented keel, 527 cemented peg, and 981 hybrid cage glenoids. Outcomes were evaluated at 4,746 postoperative timepoints for 1,802 primary aTSA, with a mean follow-up of 65 months (24 to 217). Results. Relative to their preoperative condition, each glenoid cohort had significant improvements in clinical outcomes from two years to ten years after surgery. Patients with cage glenoids had significantly better clinical outcomes, with higher patient-reported outcome scores and significantly increased active range of motion, compared with those with keel and peg glenoids. Those with cage glenoids also had significantly fewer complications (keel: 13.3%, peg: 13.1%, cage: 7.4%), revisions (keel: 7.1%, peg 9.7%, cage 3.5%), and aseptic glenoid loosening and failure (keel: 4.7%, peg: 5.8%, cage: 2.5%). Regarding radiological outcomes, 70 patients (11.2%) with cage glenoids had glenoid radiolucent lines (RLLs). The cage glenoid RLL rate was 3.3-times (p < 0.001) less than those with keel glenoids (37.3%) and 4.6-times (p < 0.001) less than those with peg glenoids (51.2%). Conclusion. These findings show that good long-term clinical and radiological outcomes can be achieved with each of the three aTSA designs of glenoid component analyzed in this study. However, there were some differences in clinical and radiological outcomes: generally, cage glenoids performed best, followed by cemented keel glenoids, and finally cemented peg glenoids. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):668–678

Retention of well fixed bone cement at the time of a revision THA is an attractive proposition, as its removal can be difficult, time consuming and may result in extensive bone stock loss or fracture. Previously reported poor results of cemented revision THA, however, have tended to discourage Surgeons from performing “cement in cement” revisions, and this technique is not in widespread use. Since 1989, we have performed a cement within cement femoral stem revision on 354 occasions. The indications for in cement revision included facilitating acetabular revision, replacement of a monoblock stem with a damaged or incompatible head, revision of hemiarthroplasty to THA, component malposition and broken stem. Cement in cement revision was only performed in the presence of well fixed cement with an intact bone-cement interface. An Exeter polished tapered stem was cemented into the existing cement mantle on each occasion. Follow up of 5 years or longer is available for 175 cases, and over 8 years in 41. On no occasion has a cement in cement femoral stem had to be re-revised during this time for subsequent aseptic loosening. Advantages include preservation of bone stock, reduced operating time, improved acetabular exposure and early post operative full weight bearing mobilisation. This technique has not been used for 1 stage revision of infection. This experience has encouraged the refinement of this technique, including the development of a new short stem designed specifically for cement within cement revisions. This stem is designed to fit into an existing well fixed cement mantle of most designs of cemented femoral component or hemi-arthroplasty, with only limited preparation of the proximal mantle required. The new stem greatly simplifies cement in cement revision and minimises the risk of distal shaft perforation or fracture, which is otherwise a potential hazard when reaming out distal cement to accommodate a longer prosthesis

Retention of well fixed bone cement at the time of a revision THA is an attractive proposition, as its removal can be difficult, time consuming and may result in extensive bone stock loss or fracture. Previously reported poor results of cemented revision THA, however, have tended to discourage Surgeons from performing ‘cement in cement’ revisions, and this technique is not in widespread use. Since 1989 in Exeter, we have performed a ‘cement within cement’ femoral stem revision on 354 occasions. An Exeter polished tapered stem has been cemented into the existing cement mantle on each occasion. Clinical and radiological follow up of 5 years or longer is available for 156 cases. On no occasion has a cement in cement femoral stem had to be re-revised during this time for subsequent aseptic loosening. This has encouraged the refinement of this technique, including the development of a new short stem designed specifically for cement within cement revisions. This stem is designed to fit into an existing well fixed cement mantle of most designs of cemented femoral components or hemi-arthroplasties, with only limited preparation of the proximal mantle required. The new stem greatly simplifies cement in cement revision and minimises the risk of distal shaft perforation or fracture, which is otherwise a potential hazard when reaming out distal cement to accommodate a longer prosthesis

The cement in cement technique for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has shown good results in selected cases. However, results of its use in the revision of hemiarthroplasty to THA has not been previously reported. Between May 1994 and May 2007 28 (20 Thompson's and 8 Exeter bipolar) hip hemiarthroplasties were revised to THA in 28 patients using the cement in cement technique. All had an Exeter stem inserted at the time of revision. Clinical and operative data were collected prospectively. Clinical evaluation was by the Charnley, Harris and Oxford. Hip scores and radiographs were analysed post-operatively and at latest follow up. The mean age at time of hemiarthroplasty revision was 80 (35 to 93) years. The reason for revision was acetabular erosion in 12 (43%), recurrent dislocation in eight (29%), aseptic stem loosening in four (14%), periprosthetic fracture in two (7%) and infection in a further two (7%) patients. No patient has been lost to follow up. Three patients died within three months of surgery. The mean follow up of the remainder was 50 (16 to 119) months. Survivorship with revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 100%. Three cases (11%) have since undergone further revision, one for recurrent dislocation, one for infection, and one for periprosthetic fracture. The cement in cement technique can be successfully applied to revision of hip hemiarthroplasty to THA. It has a number of advantages in this elderly population including minimising bone loss, blood loss and operative time

The cement in cement technique for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has shown good results in selected cases. However results of its use in the revision of hemiarthroplasty to THA has not been previously reported. Between May 1994 and May 2007 28 (20 Thompson’s and 8 Exeter bipolar) hip hemiarthroplasties were revised to THA in 28 patients using the cement in cement technique. All had an Exeter stem inserted at the time of revision. Clinical and operative data were collected prospectively. Clinical evaluation was by the Charnley, Harris and Oxford hip scores and radiographs were analysed post-operatively and at latest follow up. The mean age at time of hemiarthroplasty revision was 80 (35 to 93) years. The reason for revision was acetabular erosion in 12 (43%), recurrent dislocation in 8 (29%), aseptic loosening in 4 (14%), periprosthetic fracture in 2 (7%) and infection in 2 (7%) patients. No patient has been lost to follow up. 3 patients died within 3 months of surgery. The mean follow up of the remainder was 50 (16 to 119) months. Survivorship with revision of the femoral stem for aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 100%. 3 cases (11%) have since undergone further revision, 1 for recurrent dislocation, 1 for infection, and 1 for periprosthetic fracture. The cement in cement technique can be successfully applied to revision of hip hemiarthroplasty to THA. It has a number of advantages in this elderly population including minimizing bone loss, blood loss and operative time

In revision hip surgery, a solidly cemented femoral component may obstruct access to the acetabulum, may be poorly orientated, or may have inadequate offset and head diameter. These problems can be addressed by revising the femoral component. The object of this study was to determine the outcome of cementing a polished, tapered, modular implant into the retained cement mantle. Benefits of cement within cement revision of a femoral stem include simplicity, reduced theatre time, and potentially reduced complication rates. A consecutive series of 36 patients (11 men, 25 women) age range 35 to 90 years (mean age 70) underwent c stem cement in cement revision hip arthroplasty between June 2000 and April 2006. Indications for revision arthroplasty included 20 patients with aseptic acetabular loosening and 13 patients with recurrent instability. Follow up (12–84 months, mean 48 months) was annual and the outcome for every implant was known. Outcome measures included the shortened WOMAC score, Orthowave patient satisfaction survey, radiographic analysis, and assessment of the records for perioperative complications. No patients were lost to follow up, 2 patients died with their hip in situ. The mean post operative WOMAC score at latest follow up was 10.89 (median 11, range 0 to 29). There has been no clinical or radiological signs of prosthesis loosening or failure on follow up. Complications included: one sacral plexus palsy which had a partial recovery, and one intra-operative periprosthetic fracture identified and treated at the time of the revision procedure. One patient underwent a further cup revision for recurrent dislocation. Cement within cement revision hip arthroplasty using a highly polished tapered stem in the short to medium term provides satisfactory functional outcomes and is associated with low complication rates and good survivorship. Longer term results are awaited

Standard practice in revision total hip replacement (THR) for periprosthetic fracture (PPF) is to remove all cement from the femoral canal prior to implantation of a new component. This can make the procedure time consuming and complex. Since 1991 it has been our practice to preserve the old femoral cement where it remains well fixed to bone, even if the cement mantle is fractured, and to cement a new component into the old mantle. We have reviewed the data of 48 consecutive patients, treated at our unit between 1991 and 2009, with a first PPF around a cemented primary THR stem where a cement in cement revision was performed. 8 hips were revised to a standard length stem, 39 hips to a long stem & 1 patient had the same stem reinserted. All fractures were reduced and held with cerclage wires or cables and four had supplementary plate fixation. Full clinical and radiographic follow up was available in 38 patients & clinical or radiographic follow up in a further 6 patients. The other 4 patients. without follow up but whose outcome is known, have suffered no complications and are pain free. Of the remaining 44 patients, forty-two went on to union of the fracture and two have required further surgery for non-union. One patient has ongoing undiagnosed hip pain. Our long term experience with cement in cement revision for periprosthetic femoral fractures shows that this is a viable technique with a low complication rate and high rate of union (95%) in what is generally regarded as a very difficult condition to treat

Introduction. Cement in cement revision with preservation of the original cement mantle has become an attractive and commonly practised technique in revision hip surgery. Since introducing this technique to our unit we have used two types of polished tapered stem. We report the clinical and radiological outcomes for cement in cement femoral revisions performed using these prostheses. Materials and Methods. All patients who underwent femoral cement in cement revision with a smooth tapered stem between 2005 –2013 were assessed. Data collected included indication for revision surgery and components used. All patients were followed up annually. Outcomes recorded were radiographic analysis, clinical outcome scores (Oxford Hip Score, WOMAC and SF-12) and complications, including requirement for further revision surgery. Median follow-up was 5 years (range 1 – 8 years). 116 revision procedures utilising cement in cement femoral revision were performed in the 8 year study period (68 females, 48 males, and mean age of 69 years). The femoral component was a C-stem AMT (Depuy) in 59 cases and Exeter stem (Stryker) in 57 cases. Results. Radiographic analysis demonstrated no progressive radiolucencies around the femoral component in any patient and no evidence of stem loosening at most recent review. Median Oxford Hip Score increased from 15 to 32, WOMAC from 22 to 38, and SF-12 from 25 to 32. Two patients had a further revision procedure for recurrent dislocation and 1 patient for infection. Two patients had a peri-prosthetic fracture at 4 years following initial revision surgery. There were 2 femoral stem fractures (occurring at 3 and 4 years post revision, both occurring in Exeter stems). Conclusion. Our results report cement in cement revision of the femoral component provides promising mid-term radiographic and clinical results. No femoral stems required revision for aseptic loosening. Stem fracture however occurred in 2 cases suggesting stem design is crucial for this technique

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be indicated for reasons other than femoral loosening. From 1991 to 1999, 190 revision THA procedures were performed. These included 39 cement-on-cement (20.5%), 68 bone impaction (35.8%), 31 long stem cemented (16.3%), 16 acetabulum only (8.4%), six by-pass prosthesis (3.2%), 20 short stem cemented (10.5%) and 10 miscellaneous revisions (5.3%). The mean time from previous THA was 6.6 years (1 to 23). Of the cement-on-cement revisions 18 (46%) were done for acetabular loosening, 13 (33.5%) for chronic dislocation, seven (18%) for fracture of the femoral prosthesis and one (2.5%) for chondrolysis of the hemiprosthesis. At a mean short follow-up of three years (1 to 7), we have seen no loosening of the femoral prosthesis. The absolute indication for this procedure is a Type-A cement mantle in Gruen zones 2 to 6. Cement-on-cement revision can be done only in selected cases, but when possible this technique saves time and money and reduces the perioperative risk

Aims. To compare the cost-effectiveness of high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement versus single-antibiotic cement for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Methods. Using data from a multicentre randomized controlled trial (World Hip Trauma Evaluation 8 (WHiTE-8)) in the UK, a within-trial economic evaluation was conducted. Resource usage was measured over 120 days post randomization, and cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), gained from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective in the base-case analysis. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was handled using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. The base-case analysis showed that high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement had a significantly higher mean cost (£224 (95% confidence interval (CI) -408 to 855)) and almost the same QALYs (0.001 (95% CI -0.002 to 0.003)) relative to single-antibiotic cement from the UK NHS and PSS perspective. The probability of the high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement being cost-effective was less than 0.3 at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds, and its net monetary benefit was negative. This finding remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This study shows that high-dose, dual-antibiotic cement is unlikely to be cost-effective compared to single-antibiotic cement for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1070–1077

The radiological and biomechanical assessment using cement augmented cannulated pedicle screw (Biomet. ®. , Omega 21. ®. ) and the correlation of the cement volume to the pullout strength needed for each screw. Cadaveric vertebrae of different lumbar levels were used. Through cannulated pedicle screw a definite volume of cement was applicated. The bone volume occupied by cement was assessed by means of segmentation after Computer Tomography. Biomechanical Pullout tests and statistical correlation analysis were then performed. The maximum pullout strength was 1361 N and the minimum pullout strength was 172 N (SD 331 N). The maximum cement volume was 5,29 cm3 and the minimum 1,02 cm3 (SD 1,159). The maximum cement diameter was 26,6 cm and the minimum cement diameter was 20,7 cm (SD 1,744). There is statistically significant correlation between the pullout strength and the injected cement volume (p< 0,05). The cannulated pedicle screw was used for a better fixation in the vertebral body. The cement augmentation with this technique is easier and seems to be safer than cement augmentation of non cannulated screws. Pullout strength of the cannulated screws correlates positively with the cement volume. It is though not influenced either by the total vertebral volume or by the ratio cement volume to vertebral volume or by the maximum diameter of the cement drough

Revision of a cemented hemiarthroplasty of the hip may be a hazardous procedure with high rates of intra-operative complications. Removing well-fixed cement is time consuming and risks damaging already weak bone or perforating the femoral shaft. The cement-in-cement method avoids removal of intact cement and has shown good results when used for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The use of this technique for the revision of a hemiarthroplasty to THA has not been previously reported. A total of 28 consecutive hemiarthroplasties (in 28 patients) were revised to a THA using an Exeter stem and the cement-in-cement technique. There were four men and 24 women; their mean age was 80 years (35 to 93). Clinical and radiographic data, as well as operative notes, were collected prospectively and no patient was lost to follow-up. Four patients died within two years of surgery. The mean follow up of the remainder was 70 months (25 to 124). Intra-operatively there was one proximal perforation, one crack of the femoral calcar and one acetabular fracture. No femoral components have required subsequent revision for aseptic loosening or are radiologically loose. . Four patients with late complications (14%) have since undergone surgery (two for a peri-prosthetic fracture, and one each for deep infection and recurrent dislocation) resulting in an overall major rate of complication of 35.7%. The cement-in-cement technique provides reliable femoral fixation in this elderly population and may reduce operating time and rates of complication. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1623–7

Introduction: The failure rate of cemented hip replacements is about 1% per year, mainly due to aseptic loosening. PMMA acts as a grout, therefore high pressure is needed to ensure fixation. Various plug designs are used to increase pressure. No data is available on their ability to occlude the canal. Factors including canal size, canal shape and cement viscosity may affect performance. The two aims of this study are (I) to determine the effect of cement viscosity, canal shape and canal size on the ability of cement restrictors to withstand cementation pressures, and (II) to determine which of the currently commercially available designs of cement restrictor is able to withstand cementation pressures, regardless of values of other potentially influential factors. Methods: Artificial femoral canals were drilled in oak blocks. Circular canals had diameters of 12 or 17.5 mm. Oval canals had short axes equal to the diameter of the circular canals and long axes 1.3 times longer. This ellipticity of 1.3 is average for human femoral canals. One of four types of cement plugs (Hardinge, DePuy, UK; Exeter, Stryker, UK; Amber Flex, Summit Medical, UK; and OptiPlug, Scandimed, Sweden) was inserted. A pressure transducer was fitted in the canal just proximal to the plug. Bone cement (Palacos LV-40 low viscosity or Palacos R-20 high viscosity, both Schering Plough, UK) was prepared in a mixing device for 1 min at 21°C, and inserted in the artificial canal after 4 minutes. A materials testing machine was used to generate pressure in the cement. Cement pressure and plug position were measured. All combinations of canal size and shape, plug design and cement viscosity were pre-selected according to a D-optimal experimental design which was optimised to perform a four-way ANOVA to analyse the four main factors plus the interactions between plugs and the other three factors. A total of 23 experiments was performed. Results: Average cement pressures achieved differed between implants (OptiPlug 448±66 kPa, Hardinge 142±66, Exeter 705±66, Amber Flex 475±72; p=0.002, all mean±SEM). They also differed between canal sizes (12 mm 529±49, 18 mm 356±47; p=0.03), canal shapes (Round 631±45, Oval 254±51; p=0.004) and cement viscosity (High 535±54, Low 350±43; p=0.03). No significant interaction between factors was found. Discussion and Conclusion: All plugs resisted lower pressures in large canals, oval canals or with low viscosity cement. When comparing plugs, these different circumstances should therefore be taken into account. Of the four tested, the Exeter plug performed best in all adverse circumstances. The OptiPlug and AmberFlex, which are both resorbable, had an intermediate performance. The Hardinge plug performed worse

Objective: The adequacy of the cement mantle around various designs of impaction-grafted stems has been compared and deemed inadequate around the Exeter system. Yet, good clinical results have been reported. The conventional wisdom of solid cement mantles has been also been questioned in recent reports by the low migration and high survival rates of stems inserted with a very thin cement mantle – the so called ‘French paradox’. We performed this study specifically to address two questions. Does cement mantle thickness affect cement penetration depth during impaction grafting? and. Does cement mantle thickness affect the early mechanical stability?. Materials and Methods: 12 composite femurs were prepared to mimic cavitary defect. Impaction grafting was done with morcellized freshly frozen porcine femoral condyles using Exeter X-change system. The size of tamp and prosthesis were independently varied creating tamp/stem mismatch to produce cement mantles with a nominal thickness of 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 mm. Cyclical loading was done at 1 Hz for 2500 cycles at 2500 N. From the displacement data measured by 6 linear displacement transducers we calculated subsidence and retroversion. The solid cement mantle and the penetration depth into the graft were then measured along 16 points in each cut section of the femurs done at 1.5 cm intervals. Results: There was a high correlation between tamp/stem mismatch (nominal mantle thickness) and actual mantle thickness (r=0.84). Average cement penetration into the graft for each prosthesis varied between 0.3 and 2.0 mm. Largest variations were proximally, where average penetration varied between 0.4 and 3.5 mm. A thicker solid cement mantle gave on average less cement penetration (r=−0.62). Stem subsidence after cyclic loading ranged from 0.4 to 2.5 mm and correlated significantly with tamp size (r=0.59, p< .05). However, better correlations were found with solid mantle thickness (r=0.90, p< 0.05) and cement penetration depth (r=−0.81). Stem retroversion after cyclic loading ranged from 0.1 to 2.0 degrees and correlated negatively with stem size (r=−0.53) but did not correlate with tamp size. Correlations with solid mantle thickness and cement penetration depth were not better than those with tamp size. Discussion: Our study shows that a thinner mantle is associated with deeper cement penetration into the graft. This probably is due to the higher cement pressure generated during stem insertion when there is less space for the cement to escape. Better mechanical interlock with the higher cement penetration possibly explains the reduced subsidence with thin cement mantles. Our study also shows that stem retroversion is associated with stem size only, and is larger for thinner stems. This could be explained by thinner stems providing less resistance to torsional forces

Aims. Dislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct. Methods. We identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97). Results. There were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case. Conclusion. While dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):352–358

Aims. Loosening of the tibial component after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common indication for revision. Increasing the strength of the initial tibial implant/cement interface is desirable. There is little information about the surgical techniques that lead to the highest strength. We investigated the effects of eight variables on the strength of the initial tibial baseplate/cement interface. Materials and Methods. A total of 48 tibial trays were cemented into acrylic holders using cement from two manufacturers, at three different times (early, normal, and late) using two techniques: cementing the tibial plateau or the plateau and the keel; and involving two conditions of contamination with marrow fat (at the metal/cement and cement/cement interfaces). Push-out tests were performed with load continuously recorded. Results. Compared with normal conditions, early cementing increased the mean strength of the interface when using the two cements, Simplex and Palacos, by 48% and 72%, respectively. Late cementing reduced the strength by 47% and 73%, respectively. Cementing the keel increased the mean strength by 153% and 147%, respectively, for the two cements. Contamination of the metal/cement interface with fat reduced the mean strength by 99% and 94% for the two cements but adding cement to the underside of the tibial tray prior to insertion resulted in the mean strength being lowered by only 65% and 43%, respectively. Conclusion. In order to maximize the strength of the tibial tray/cement interface, cement should be applied to the component soon after mixing, contamination of the interface should be avoided, and the keel and the plateau should be cemented

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the actual cost of a cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedure. Materials and Methods. The cost of operative time, implants, cement, and cementing accessories were included in the overall cost of the TKA procedure. Operative time was determined from a previously published study comparing cemented and cementless implants of the same design. The cost of operative time, implants, cement, and cementing accessories was determined from market and institutional data. Results. Mean operative time for cemented TKA was 11.6 minutes longer for cemented TKA than cementless TKA (93.7 minutes (. sd. 16.7) vs 82.1 minutes (. sd. 16.6); p = 0.001). Using a conservative published standard of $36 per minute for operating theatre time cost, the total time cost was $418 higher for cementing TKA. The cost of cement and accessories ranged from $170 to $625. Overall, the calculated cost of cemented TKA is $588 to $1043, depending on technique. The general increased charge for cementless TKA implants over cemented TKA implants was $366. Conclusion. The overall procedural cost of implanting a cementless TKA is less than implanting a cemented TKA. Cost alone should not be a barrier to using cementless TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):61–63

This study aimed to analyze the effect of two different techniques of cement application: cement on bone surface (CoB) versus cement on bone surface and implant surface (CoBaI) on the short-term effect of radiolucent lines (RLL) in primary fully cemented total knee arthroplasties (TKA) with patella resurfacing. 379 fully cemented TKAs (318 patients) were included in this monocentric study. Preoperative and postoperative at week 4 and 12 month after surgery all patients had a clinical and radiological examination and were administered the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Cement was applied in two different ways among the two study groups: cement on bone surface (CoB group) or cement on bone surface and implant surface (CoBaI group). The evaluation of the presence of RLL or osteolysis was done as previously described using the updated Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System. The mean OKS and range of motion improved significantly in both groups at the 4-week and 12-month follow-up, with no significant difference between the groups (CoB vs. CoBaI). RLL were present in 4.7% in the whole study population and were significantly higher in the CoBaI group (10.5%) at the 4-week follow-up. At the 12-month follow-up RLL were seen in 29.8% of the TKAs in the CoBaI group, whereas the incidence was lower in the CoB group (24.0% (n.s.)). There were two revisions in each group. None of these due to aseptic loosening. Our study indicated that the application of bone cement on bone surface only might be more beneficial than onto the bone surface and onto the implant surface as well in respect to the short-term presence of RLL in fully cemented primary TKA. The long-term results will be of interest, especially in respect to aseptic loosening and might guide future directions of bone cement applications in TKA

According to the latest report from the German Arthroplasty Registry, aseptic loosening is the primary cause of implant failure following primary hip arthroplasty. Osteolysis of the proximal femur due to the stress-shielding of the bone by the implant causes loss of fixation of the proximal femoral stem, while the distal stem remains fixed. Removing a fixed stem is a challenging process. Current removal methods rely on manual tools such as chisels, burrs, osteotomes, drills and mills, which pose the risk of bone fracture and cortical perforation. Others such as ultrasound and laser, generate temperatures that could cause thermal injury to the surrounding tissues and bone. It is crucial to develop techniques that preserve the host bone, as its quality after implant removal affects the outcome of a revision surgery. A gentler removal method based on the transcutaneous heating of the implant by induction is proposed. By reaching the glass transition temperature (T. G. ) of the periprosthetic cement, the cement is expected to soften, enabling the implant to be gently pulled out. The in-vivo environment comprises body fluids and elevated temperatures, which deteriorate the inherent mechanical properties of bone cement, including its T. G. We aimed to investigate the effect of fluid absorption on the T. G. (ASTM E2716-09) and Vicat softening temperature (VST) (ISO 306) of Palacos R cement (Heraeus Medical GmbH) when dry and after storage in Ringer's solution for up to 8 weeks. Samples stored in Ringer's solution exhibited lower T. G. and VST than those stored in air. After 8 weeks, the T. G. decreased from 95.2°C to 81.5°C in the Ringer's group, while the VST decreased from 104.4°C to 91.9°C. These findings will be useful in the ultimate goal of this project which is to design an induction-based system for implant removal. Acknowledgements: Funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) – SFB/TRR-298-SIIRI – Project-ID 426335750

Introduction. Cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the gold standard with survivorship above 90% at greater than 10 years postoperatively. However, with younger, heavier, more active patients undergoing TKA at an increasing rate, cementless implants have the appeal of potential for improved implant fixation longevity and decreased rates of aseptic loosening. The cementless implants are more expensive than their cemented counterparts such that implant costs may create a barrier to utilization. However, such comparisons fail to consider the unavoidable additional costs of cementing, including the cost of operating room time, cement and cementing accessories. The purpose of this study is to compare the actual cost of cemented and cementless TKA. Methods. The TKA cost calculation included the cost of operative time, implants, cement and cementing accessories. The difference in operative time between cemented and cementless TKA was determined from a previously published study of 100 TKAs performed using a cemented (55) or press fit (45) implant of the same design performed at a single institution by four fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons. The decision to use cemented or cementless design in these patients was made based on patient bone quality intraoperatively. Operative time was compared between groups using a Student's two-tailed T-test. The cost of operating room time was based on estimates in the recent literature. The cost of cement and cementing accessories was estimated based on publically available market data. The cost of implants was estimated from institutional data for multiple companies. Results. The cost comparison between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty is summarized in Table 1. Mean operative time for cemented TKA was 14.3 minutes longer than for cementless TKA (94.7 + 15.2 vs. 80.4 + 15.7, p<0.01). The estimated cost of one minute of operating room time in the literature ranges from $30 to $60. For our analysis, we used an estimate of $36 per minute obtained from a recently published multi-center study. This resulted in an average operating room time cost $3406 for cemented and $2894 for cementless TKA. Antibiotic cement costs an average of $250 per bag and antibiotic-free cement costs an average of $75 per bag. Cement mixing techniques vary across surgeons. Approximately 95% use a vacuum system and 5% use a mixing bowl. The cost of vacuum systems ranges from $80 for an enclosed bowl to $125 for a vacuum system that can be directly connected to a cement gun. The cost of a plastic mixing bowl and spatula is $20. The cost of the disposables from a cement injection kit is $25. The average cost of a primary TKA implant, including femoral, tibial and polyethylene liner components, is $3530 for cemented and $4659 for cementless designs. Patellar resurfacing is not routinely used at our institution and therefore was not included in implant cost. Based on our calculations, the average cost of a cementless TKA is $7553. Using the cheapest cementing technique with 2 bags of plain cement and a manual mixing bowl with spatula, the cost of a cemented TKA $7114. Using the most expensive cementing technique with 2 bags of antibiotic cement and a cement gun compatible vacuum mixer, the cost of a cemented TKA is $7564. Conclusion. Cemented TKA remains the gold standard and still accounts for most procedures. Cementless TKA is increasing in utilization and may decrease the rate of aseptic loosening, especially in the rapidly growing young, active population undergoing TKA. Although cementless implants remain more expensive than cemented implants at most institutions, the actual overall cost of the two procedures is similar if operative time, cement and cementing accessories are considered. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly