A novel enhanced cement fixation (EF) tibial implant with deeper cement pockets and a more roughened bonding surface was released to market for an existing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system.This randomized controlled trial assessed fixation of the both the EF (ATTUNE S+) and standard (Std; ATTUNE S) using radiostereometric analysis. Overall, 50 subjects were randomized (21 EF-TKA and 23 Std-TKA in the final analysis), and had follow-up visits at six weeks, and six, 12, and 24 months to assess migration of the tibial component. Low viscosity bone cement with tobramycin was used in a standardized fashion for all subjects. Patient-reported outcome measure data was captured at preoperative and all postoperative visits.Aims
Methods
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and safe orthopaedic procedure. Zimmer Biomet's NexGen is the second most popular brand of implant used in the UK. The primary cause of revision after the first year is aseptic loosening. We present our experience of using this implant, with significant concerns around its performance with regards early aseptic loosening of the tibial component. A retrospective, single-surgeon review was carried out of all of the NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized (LPS) TKAs performed in this institute. The specific model used for the index procedures was the NexGen Complete Knee System (Legacy Knee-Posterior Stabilized LPS-Flex Articular Surface, LPS-Flex Femoral Component Option, and Stemmed Nonaugmentable Tibial Component Option).Aims
Methods
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. 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).Aims
Methods
The main objective of this study is to analyze the penetration of bone cement in four different full cementation techniques of the tibial tray. 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.Aims
Methods
To establish our early clinical results of a new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tibial component introduced in 2013 and compare it to other designs in use at our hospital during the same period. This is a retrospective study of 166 (154 patients) consecutive cemented, fixed bearing, posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs (ATTUNE) at one hospital performed by five surgeons. These were compared with a reference cohort of 511 knees (470 patients) of other designs (seven manufacturers) performed at the same hospital by the same surgeons. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, or follow-up times between the two cohorts. The primary outcome was revision performed or pending.Aims
Methods
