Analysis of the Attune tibial tray backside: A comparative retrieval study.
Implant-cement interface
Retrieval analysis
Total knee arthroplasty
Journal
Bone & joint research
ISSN: 2046-3758
Titre abrégé: Bone Joint Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101586057
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
entrez:
19
4
2019
pubmed:
19
4
2019
medline:
19
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. We examined 12 titanium (Ti) PFC Sigma implants, eight cobalt-chromium (CoCr) PFC Sigma implants, eight cobalt-chromium PFC Sigma rotating platform (RP) implants, and 11 Attune implants. We used a peer-reviewed digital imaging method to quantify the amount of cement attached to the backside of each tibial tray. We then measured: 1) the size of tibial tray thickness, tray projections, peripheral lips, and undercuts; and 2) surface roughness (Ra) on the backside and keel of the trays. Statistical analyses were performed to investigate differences between the two designs. There was no evidence of cement attachment on any of the 11 Attune trays examined. There were significant differences between Ti and CoCr PFC Sigma implants and Attune designs (p < 0.05); however, there was no significant difference between CoCr PFC Sigma RP and Attune designs (p > 0.05). There were significant differences in the design features between the investigated designs (p < 0.05). The majority of the earliest PFC Sigma designs showed evidence of cement, while all of the retrieved Attune trays and the majority of the RP PFC trays in this study had no cement attached. This may be attributable to the design differences of these implants, in particular in relation to the cement pockets. Our results may help explain a controversial aspect related to cement attachment in a recently introduced TKA design.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30997039
doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.83.BJJ-2018-0102.R2
pii: 10.1302_2046-3758.83.BJJ-2018-0102.R2
pmc: PMC6446526
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
136-145Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
ICMJE COI statement: P. Allen reports money received from DePuy Synthes not related to this study. A. Eskelinen reports money in the form of a grant from Zimmer Biomet and DePuy Synthes not related to this study. M. T. Hirschmann reports money received from DePuy Synthes and Smith & Nephew not related to this study.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Oct;84-A(10):1849-55
pubmed: 12377918
J Arthroplasty. 2006 Sep;21(6):883-8
pubmed: 16950044
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Mar;17(3):248-53
pubmed: 19082578
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Feb;25(2):173-8
pubmed: 19195825
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Apr;26(3):492-6
pubmed: 20381290
J Arthroplasty. 2011 Dec;26(8):1445-50
pubmed: 21236628
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Nov;27(9):929-35
pubmed: 22819669
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Mar;471(3):1008-13
pubmed: 23054523
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Mar 6;95(5):385-92
pubmed: 23344005
Bone Joint J. 2013 Mar;95-B(3):295-300
pubmed: 23450010
J Orthop Surg Res. 2014 Nov 29;9:123
pubmed: 25471122
Knee. 2015 Oct;22(5):424-8
pubmed: 25795544
Bone Joint J. 2015 Jun;97-B(6):723-8
pubmed: 26033049
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2017 Jan;105(1):155-164
pubmed: 26439211
J Arthroplasty. 2016 Nov;31(11):2579-2582
pubmed: 27155996
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jan;32(1):79-82
pubmed: 27421584
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Feb;32(2):558-562
pubmed: 27593733
J Arthroplasty. 2017 Feb;32(2):431-436
pubmed: 27600300
Med Eng Phys. 2016 Dec;38(12):1481-1488
pubmed: 27745873
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2018 Jan;106(1):460-467
pubmed: 27898194
J Knee Surg. 2017 Jun;30(5):435-439
pubmed: 28591930
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Feb;33(2):391-397
pubmed: 29066248