Aims. One of the main causes of tibial revision surgery for total knee arthroplasty is aseptic loosening. Therefore, stable fixation between the tibial component and the cement, and between the tibial component and the bone, is essential. A factor that could influence the implant stability is the implant design, with its different variations. In an existing implant system, the tibial component was modified by adding cement pockets. The aim of this experimental in vitro study was to investigate whether additional cement pockets on the underside of the tibial component could improve implant stability. The relative motion between implant and bone, the maximum pull-out force, the tibial cement mantle, and a possible path from the bone marrow to the metal-cement interface were determined. Methods. A tibial component with (group S: Attune S+) and without (group A: Attune) additional cement pockets was implanted in 15 fresh-frozen human leg pairs. The relative motion was determined under dynamic loading (extension-flexion 20° to 50°, load-level 1,200 to 2,100 N) with subsequent determination of the maximum pull-out force. In addition, the cement mantle was analyzed radiologically for possible defects, the tibia base cement adhesion, and preoperative bone mineral density (BMD). Results. The BMD showed no statistically significant difference between both groups. Group A showed for all load levels significantly higher maximum relative motion compared to group S for 20° and 50° flexion. Group S improved the maximum failure load significantly compared to group A without additional cement pockets. Group S showed a significantly increased cement adhesion compared to group A. The cement penetration and cement mantle defect analysis showed no significant differences between both groups. Conclusion. From a biomechanical point of view, the additional cement pockets of the component have improved the fixation performance of the implant. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(4):229–238

Objectives

The Attune total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been used in over 600 000 patients worldwide. Registry data show good clinical outcome; however, concerns over the cement-tibial interface have been reported. We used retrieval analysis to give further insight into this controversial topic.

During the last decades, several research groups have used bisphosphonates for local application to counteract secondary bone resorption after bone grafting, to improve implant fixation or to control bone resorption caused by bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs). We focused on zoledronate (a bisphosphonate) due to its greater antiresorptive potential over other bisphosphonates. Recently, it has become obvious that the carrier is of importance to modulate the concentration and elution profile of the zoledronic acid locally. Incorporating one fifth of the recommended systemic dose of zoledronate with different apatite matrices and types of bone defects has been shown to enhance bone regeneration significantly in vivo. We expect the local delivery of zoledronate to overcome the limitations and side effects associated with systemic usage; however, we need to know more about the bioavailability and the biological effects. The local use of BMP-2 and zoledronate as a combination has a proven additional effect on bone regeneration. This review focuses primarily on the local use of zoledronate alone, or in combination with bone anabolic factors, in various preclinical models mimicking different orthopaedic conditions.

Cite this article: I. Qayoom, D. B. Raina, A. Širka, Š. Tarasevičius, M. Tägil, A. Kumar, L. Lidgren. Anabolic and antiresorptive actions of locally delivered bisphosphonates for bone repair: A review. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:548–560. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.710.BJR-2018-0015.R2.

Objectives. The primary stability of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) relies on interference fit (or press fit). Insufficient interference may cause implant loosening, whilst excessive interference could cause bone damage and fracture. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal interference fit by measuring the force required to seat the tibial component of the cementless OUKR (push-in force) and the force required to remove the component (pull-out force). Materials and Methods. Six cementless OUKR tibial components were implanted in 12 new slots prepared on blocks of solid polyurethane foam (20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF), Sawbones, Malmo, Sweden) with a range of interference of 0.1 mm to 1.9 mm using a Dartec materials testing machine HC10 (Zwick Ltd, Herefordshire, United Kingdom) . The experiment was repeated with cellular polyurethane foam (15 PCF), which is a more porous analogue for trabecular bone. Results. The push-in force progressively increased with increasing interference. The pull-out force was related in a non-linear fashion to interference, decreasing with higher interference. Compared with the current nominal interference, a lower interference would reduce the push-in forces by up to 45% (p < 0.001 One way ANOVA) ensuring comparable (or improved) pull-out forces (p > 0.05 Bonferroni post hoc test). With the more porous bone analogue, although the forces were lower, the relationship between interference and push-in and pull-out force were similar. Conclusions. This study suggests that decreasing the interference fit of the tibial component of the cementless OUKR reduces the push-in force and can increase the pull-out force. An optimal interference fit may both improve primary fixation and decrease the risk of fracture. Cite this article: S. Campi, S. J. Mellon, D. Ridley, B. Foulke, C. A. F. Dodd, H. G. Pandit, D. W. Murray. Optimal interference of the tibial component of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:226–231. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.73.BJR-2017-0193.R1

Objectives. Cement augmentation of pedicle screws could be used to improve screw stability, especially in osteoporotic vertebrae. However, little is known concerning the influence of different screw types and amount of cement applied. Therefore, the aim of this biomechanical in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of cement augmentation on the screw pull-out force in osteoporotic vertebrae, comparing different pedicle screws (solid and fenestrated) and cement volumes (0 mL, 1 mL or 3 mL). Materials and Methods. A total of 54 osteoporotic human cadaver thoracic and lumbar vertebrae were instrumented with pedicle screws (uncemented, solid cemented or fenestrated cemented) and augmented with high-viscosity PMMA cement (0 mL, 1 mL or 3 mL). The insertion torque and bone mineral density were determined. Radiographs and CT scans were undertaken to evaluate cement distribution and cement leakage. Pull-out testing was performed with a material testing machine to measure failure load and stiffness. The paired t-test was used to compare the two screws within each vertebra. Results. Mean failure load was significantly greater for fenestrated cemented screws (+622 N; p ⩽ 0.001) and solid cemented screws (+460 N; p ⩽ 0.001) than for uncemented screws. There was no significant difference between the solid and fenestrated cemented screws (p = 0.5). In the lower thoracic vertebrae, 1 mL cement was enough to significantly increase failure load, while 3 mL led to further significant improvement in the upper thoracic, lower thoracic and lumbar regions. Conclusion. Conventional, solid pedicle screws augmented with high-viscosity cement provided comparable screw stability in pull-out testing to that of sophisticated and more expensive fenestrated screws. In terms of cement volume, we recommend the use of at least 1 mL in the thoracic and 3 mL in the lumbar spine. Cite this article: C. I. Leichtle, A. Lorenz, S. Rothstock, J. Happel, F. Walter, T. Shiozawa, U. G. Leichtle. Pull-out strength of cemented solid versus fenestrated pedicle screws in osteoporotic vertebrae. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:419–426

Objectives

Healing in cancellous metaphyseal bone might be different from midshaft fracture healing due to different access to mesenchymal stem cells, and because metaphyseal bone often heals without a cartilaginous phase. Inflammation plays an important role in the healing of a shaft fracture, but if metaphyseal injury is different, it is important to clarify if the role of inflammation is also different. The biology of fracture healing is also influenced by the degree of mechanical stability. It is unclear if inflammation interacts with stability-related factors.

Objective. This study compared the primary stability of two commercially available acetabular components from the same manufacturer, which differ only in geometry; a hemispherical and a peripherally enhanced design (peripheral self-locking (PSL)). The objective was to determine whether altered geometry resulted in better primary stability. Methods. Acetabular components were seated with 0.8 mm to 2 mm interference fits in reamed polyethylene bone substrate of two different densities (0.22 g/cm. 3. and 0.45 g/cm. 3. ). The primary stability of each component design was investigated by measuring the peak failure load during uniaxial pull-out and tangential lever-out tests. Results. There was no statistically significant difference in seating force (p = 0.104) or primary stability (pull-out p = 0.171, lever-out p = 0.087) of the two components in the low-density substrate. Similarly, in the high-density substrate, there was no statistically significant difference in the peak pull-out force (p = 0.154) or lever-out moment (p = 0.574) between the designs. However, the PSL component required a significantly higher seating force than the hemispherical cup in the high-density bone analogue (p = 0.006). Conclusions. Higher seating forces associated with the PSL design may result in inadequate seating and increased risk of component malpositioning or acetabular fracture in the intra-operative setting in high-density bone stock. Our results, if translated clinically, suggest that a purely hemispherical geometry may have an advantage over a peripherally enhanced geometry in high density bone stock. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:264–9