Two-year fixation and ten-year clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty inserted with normal-curing bone cement and slow-curing bone cement: A randomized controlled trial in 54 patients.
BMD
Bone Cement
Knee
RSA
Total Knee Arthroplasty
Journal
The Knee
ISSN: 1873-5800
Titre abrégé: Knee
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9430798
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
received:
20
01
2021
revised:
12
05
2021
accepted:
25
08
2021
pubmed:
8
10
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
7
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The normal-curing Refobacin® Bone Cement R (RR) and slow-curing Refobacin® Plus Bone Cement (RP) were introduced after discontinuation of the historically most used bone cement, Refobacin®-Palacos® R, in 2005. The aim of this study was to compare total knee arthroplasty component fixation with the two bone cements. 54 patients with primary knee osteoarthritis were randomized to either RR (N = 27) or RP (N = 27) bone cement and followed for two years with radiostereometric analysis of tibial and femoral component migration and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measured periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). Further, patients were followed up at ten years with clinical outcome scores (OKS and KOOS). At two-years follow-up, tibial total translation was 0.31 mm (95% CI: 0.19 - 0.42) for the RP group and 0.56 mm (95% CI: 0.45 - 0.67) (p < 0.01) for the RR group. There was continuous tibial component migration from one to two years follow-up (MTPM > 0.2 mm) in 13/27 patients from the RR and in 12/26 patients from the RP group. There was no difference between groups in BMD baseline values or changes during follow-up, as well as no correlation between change in BMD and tibial component migration. At ten-years follow-up, the improvement in the clinical outcome scores was similar between groups. There were no prosthesis related complications during the 10-year follow-up. At two years, tibial total translation was lower in the RP compared with the RR cement group, but BMD changes were similar. At ten years, no components were revised and clinical outcome scores were similar between groups.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The normal-curing Refobacin® Bone Cement R (RR) and slow-curing Refobacin® Plus Bone Cement (RP) were introduced after discontinuation of the historically most used bone cement, Refobacin®-Palacos® R, in 2005. The aim of this study was to compare total knee arthroplasty component fixation with the two bone cements.
METHODS
METHODS
54 patients with primary knee osteoarthritis were randomized to either RR (N = 27) or RP (N = 27) bone cement and followed for two years with radiostereometric analysis of tibial and femoral component migration and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measured periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD). Further, patients were followed up at ten years with clinical outcome scores (OKS and KOOS).
RESULTS
RESULTS
At two-years follow-up, tibial total translation was 0.31 mm (95% CI: 0.19 - 0.42) for the RP group and 0.56 mm (95% CI: 0.45 - 0.67) (p < 0.01) for the RR group. There was continuous tibial component migration from one to two years follow-up (MTPM > 0.2 mm) in 13/27 patients from the RR and in 12/26 patients from the RP group. There was no difference between groups in BMD baseline values or changes during follow-up, as well as no correlation between change in BMD and tibial component migration. At ten-years follow-up, the improvement in the clinical outcome scores was similar between groups. There were no prosthesis related complications during the 10-year follow-up.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
At two years, tibial total translation was lower in the RP compared with the RR cement group, but BMD changes were similar. At ten years, no components were revised and clinical outcome scores were similar between groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34619515
pii: S0968-0160(21)00211-8
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.08.027
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bone Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
110-124Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.