Why i do use uncemented implants
Download
1 / 33

Why I do use uncemented implants - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 112 Views
  • Uploaded on

Why I do use uncemented implants. Jean-Luc LERAT Bernard MOYEN (Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud) 11èmes Journées Lyonnaises de Chirurgie du genou Oct 2004. Since 30 years surgeons argue about the use of cement for TKA Nevertheless

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Why I do use uncemented implants ' - gavin-johnson


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Why i do use uncemented implants

Why I do use uncemented implants

Jean-Luc LERAT

Bernard MOYEN

(Centre Hospitalier Lyon-Sud)

11èmes Journées Lyonnaises de Chirurgie du genou

Oct 2004



Historical
Historical TKA

First uncemented prostheses :1970 (diffusion after1980)

After some years, literature pointed out complications related to implant designs, poly wear, osteolysis, metallic debris.

  • Cuckler JM et al. Clin Orthop 2003

  • Noble PC, Clin Orthop 2003

  • Reilly MA, Walker PS et al. Clin Orthop 1982

  • Wasielewski et al. Clin Orthop 1997

  • Gill GS et al. Clin Orthop 1999 and J Bone Joint Surg 2001

  • Laskin RS. Clin Orthop 2001

  • Pavone V et al. Clin Orthop 2001

  • Callaghan et al. J Bone Joint Surg 2000


Cement vs cementless TKA

CEMENT, negative points :

  • Difficult to do a good cementation

  • Operative time increased

  • Microembolisms possible

  • Polymerization heating may lead to bone necrosis

  • Possible allergy

  • 2 additional layers

  • Difficult to remove the excessive cement in the back of the knee

  • Cement debris can be included into poly

  • Frequent lucent line under the cemented plateaus

  • Bony stock decreased

  • Revisions more difficult

CEMENT, negative points :

  • Difficult to do a good cementation

  • Operative time increased

  • Microembolisms possible

  • Polymerization heating may lead to bone necrosis

  • Possible allergy

  • 2 additional interfaces

  • Difficult to remove the excessive cement in the back of the knee

  • Cement debris can be included into poly

  • Frequent lucent line under the cemented plateaus

  • Bony stock decreased

  • Revisions more difficult

    CEMENTLESS, negative points :

  • Stability is mandatory for bony integration

  • Difficult to obtain a good bioactive surface

  • Shear and tension on uncemented tibial implant

  • Uncemented TKR are more expensive !

  • Metal-back is necessary


In favour TKAofuncemented TKR ( f.up >10y)

Onsten I, Norqvist A, Carlsson AS, Bejaskov J, Shott S. AJ Bone Joint Surg 1998 

Hydroxyapatite augmentation of the porous coating improves fixation of tibial component: a

randomised RSA study in 116 patients

Witheside LA.Clin Orthop 2001

Long-term followup of the bone-ingrowth Ortholoc Knee System without a metal-backed patella

Hofmann AA. Hofmann AA, Evanich JD, Ferguson RP. Clin Orthop 2001

Ten to 14-year clinical followup of the cementless Natural Knee

300 TKR 10 yrs survival 95.1 %

Dixon P, Parish EN, Chan B, Chitnavis J, MJ Cross. J Bone Joint Surg 2003

Hydrxyapatite-coated, cementles total knee replacement in patients aged 75 years and over


Comparative studies cemented vs uncemented in favour of cemented implants
Comparative studies : cemented vs uncemented TKAin favour of cemented implants

Lachiewicz PF. Cement versus cementless total knee replacement : is there a place for cementless fixation in 2001.Current opinion in orthopaedics 2000

RSA study : bony fixation more secure with cement. Some cementless design have good results.

The main drawback: uncemented implants are too expensive!

McCaskie AW et al. Randomised, prospective study comparing cemented and cementless total knee replacement. Results of press-fit condylar knee replacement at five years, J Bone Joint Surg 1998 

Prospective randomised study on 139 TKR. At 5 years f.up frequent lucent lines with cement.

BUT uncemented implant are too expensive!

Duffy GP et al. Cement versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1998 

Prospective study of 55 Press fit condylar (PFC) vs 51cemented PFC .

More revision in the uncemented group (patellar problems).Survival rate10 ys: 72 % vs 94 %

Berger RA et al. Long term followup of the Miller-Galante total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 2001

172 cemented TKR « Miller-Galante I » vs 109 « Miller-Galante II » f.up 11ys.

Survival rate 84% for MG I and 100% for MG II. Difference due to patellar problems of the MGI

Several studies confirm these data concerning patellar implant


Comparative studies cemented vs uncemented no difference
Comparative studies : cemented vs uncemented TKANO difference

Khaw FM et al. A randomised controlled trial of cemented vs cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement. Ten year survival analysis.

J Bone Joint Surg 2002

277 cemented PFC vs 224 cementless : survival rate : 96,5 % - 96,6 % f.up 10 ys.

Bassett RW. Results of 1000 performance knees: cementless versus cemented fixation.

J Arthroplasty 1998

584 cementless vs 416 cemented TKR f.up 5 ys (survival rate 99%)NO difference

Buechel FF et al. Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop 2001

373 LCS New Jersey (64 cemented, 104 cementless porocoat CR, 109 rotating). Survival rate : 97,7 % f.up 10 yrs and 20 yrs. NO difference for bony fixation.

Parker DA et al. Long-term followup of cementless versus hybrid fixation for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2001

100 Miller-Galante I, with or without cement : NO difference after 12.8 ys


Still it is difficult to compare different TKR TKA

  • Shape, design are different

  • Fixation

    • 1, 2, 3 or 4 pegs

    • Cross shaped stem, short, long

    • Cylindric stem, smooth or not


The mechanical behaviour is variable according to the implant designs

Walker PS et al. J Bone Joint Surg 1981

Study of 12 cemented tibial implants on cadaveric tibias

The best fixations were obtained with :

- Full poly plateau

- Monobloc metal-backed implant (with one or two pegs)

With cementless implants, a cadaveric

experiment is obviously Impossible!


Coating
Coating implant designs

Polyethylene pegs (Freeman)

Hydroxyapatite

Porous metal (Hungerford)

Micro spheres

Titanium mesh (Miller-Galante)

CSTi (Sulzer)

Polyethylene Calcium Hydroxyapatite Titanium micro spheres

Titanium meshCSTI TM


CSTi implant designsTM Interface Microstructure

CSTi TM (Natural – INNEX)

Pores : 4 - 500 microns

Cancellous bone

Pores : 4 - 500 microns


RSA studies : implant osteointegration and stability implant designs

- Fuiko Ret al. Osteointegration and implant position after cementless total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 2003

101 uncemented LCS New Jersey

- Onsten I et al. A Hydroxyapatite augmentation of the porous coating improves fixation of tibial component: a randomised RSA study in 116 patients. J Bone Joint Surg 1998

146 « Press fit condylar » (PFC) 49 cemented, 47 with porous coating and 50 porous+HAC : No difference

- Hofmann AA et al. 10 to 14-year clinical followup of the cementless Natural Knee System.

Clin Orthop 2001s

176 Natural Knee with CSTI survival rate of 95% , f.up 10 ys.

  • Witheside LA. Long-term followup of the bone-ingrowth Ortholoc Knee System without a metal-backed patella. Clin Orthop 2001

    202 « Ortholoc porous coated » survival rate of 98.6% f.up 18 ys


Osteo integration of cementless implants implant designs

A Reality !

Stable with time !

Stability is quickly obtained

- if the bony cuts are correctly done

- if implants are in contact with the spongious bone

- and covering cortical bone

The post op rehabilitation is the same in the 2 groups

Cemented or cementless


Fixation osteointegration wear
Fixation - osteointegration - wear implant designs

Femur : In the literature femoral osteointegration is not a problem.

Tibial fixation is more controversial :

Osteolysis had been described (could be related to poly wear debris)

But osteointegration is successfull

Loosening should not be confused with fixation failure !

The results depend on many factors

  • Age

  • Weight

  • Osteoporosis

  • PCL Conservation or not

  • Patellar resurfacing or not

  • Polyethylene thickness

  • Quality of poly fixation on the tibial implant


2 TKR are considered as gold standard each in its own categorie

Cemented «Total condylar»

  • Brassard MF, Insall JN et al. Clin Orthop 2001

  • Gill GS et al. Clin Orthop 1999. J Bone Joint Surg 2001

  • Rodriguez JA, Bhende H, Ranawat C. Clin Orthop 2001

  • Pavone et al Clin Orthop 2001120 TKR survival : 91% 23 yrs

    Uncemented «LCS New-Jersey»

  • Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ, D’Alessio J. Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop 2001

    Similar survival rate

    BUT tibial plateaus are different

    - « all poly » for Total condylar

    - Rotatory «metal-backed» for LCS


Cement and metal backed mb tibia
Cement and « metal backed » (MB) tibia categorie

In favour of cemented MB

Gill GS, Joshi HB. Long-term results of Kinematic condylar knee replacement:

404 « Kinematic » cemented CR . Survival rate: 92.6 % f.up 17 ys

Laskin RS. The Genesis Total knee System. A 10-year followup study. Clin Orthop 388, 95-102 2001

100 TKR cemented« Genesis » : Survival rate 97 % f.up 10 ys ( with or without PCL)

Lachiewicz PF. Cement versus cementless total knee replacement : is there a place for cementless

fixation in 2001. Current opinion in orthopaedics 2001

In favour of cemented full poly

Rodriguez JA et al Total Condylar Knee Replacement. A 20-year followup study. Clin

Orthop 2001

Brassard MF, Insall JN et al. Does modularity affect clinical success? A comparison with a

minimum 10-year followup. Clin Orthop 2001; 388: 26-32

74 TKR « Insall-Burnstein full Polyethylene » vs 82 TKR « Insall-Burnstein MB ».

radio lucent line : 29%: MB , vs 11% full poly, but no clinical difference.

Survival rate f.up 11 ys : 92,6 % and 98 %.


Drawbacks of the mb implant fractures never with recent tka
Drawbacks of the MB categorie Implant fractures (never with recent TKA)


Drawbacks of the MB : categoriePolyethylene wear

Noble et al.Clin Orthop 2003

Wear : cemented TKR : 35 %, non cemented TKR: 25 % .

+ Impingements with cement fragments

Cuckler et al. Polyethylene damage on the nonarticular surface of modular total knee prostheses. Clin Orthop 2003

Polyethylene can be wear out along the non articular tibial surface with modular

plateaus

Reilly, Walker et al. Effects of tibial component on load transfer in the upper tibia. Clin Orthop 1982


Studies proving the best behaviour of moulded or fixed poly plateaus

  • Meding et al.Clin Orthop 2001

    387 cemented TKR « AGC » Survival rate : 94.3 % f.up 10.7ys

    Comparison moulded 4.4 mm poly plateau on a 3.6 mm metallic plateau vs 10mm all poly plateau : NO difference.

  • Ritter MA et al. Clin Orthop 2001

    4583 TKR cemented « AGC » (except 348 cemented femurs) with PCL and a moulded poly plateau on metal: survival rate 98.8% at 15 ys.

  • Rand JA et al. J Bone Joint Surg 2003.

    F.up:10 ys Survival rate : 92 % for cemented non modular MB plateaus

    90 % for cemented modular MB plateaus

    97 % for cemented all poly plateaus


My personnal experience 4399 arthroplasties
My personnal experience : plateaus4399 arthroplasties

Cement : 1408 (THA + TKA)

Cementless : 2991

  • knee : 1121

  • Hip : 1870

For my last 500 consecutive TKR, cement has still been used :

- for 17 femurs ( 3.1 %)

- for 70 tibias ( 15 %)

Other features of the series :

480 knees are CR (PCL) (96 %)

Only 4 % of patella resurfaced

  • uncemented knees (out of 1572)

  • I almost never use cement for primary TKR

  • I only use cement

    - In case of hinge TKR

    - For some revisions

    - In case of large bony defects when a bone graft

    could delay the weight bearing


Personnal experience of cementless TKR plateaus

HAP

CSTI TM

346 cases

775 cases

Natural

« Goëland »

Survival rate : 94 %

f.up : 10 to 16 ys

Innex


when the bone cuts are good plateaus

Cementless shortens the procedure

The best cement is spongious bone under the implant before impaction


Revisions are easier in cementless cases
Revisions are easier plateausin cementless cases

  • The use of thin chisels can separate the implant from the bone, step by step, with a minimum damage to the adjacent bone

  • It is not the case after cementation !

Preservation of the bone stock is an important issue for the future

  • A new cementless implant is often still possible

  • Or a cemented implant, but the use of standard TKR, as in primary

  • cases, is possible


Case of revision of a cementless tibial implant plateaus

Removal of the implant

Rare case of osteolysis under the medial plateau



Case of a cementless tibial implant plateaus : osteolysis with progressive subsidence 2-6 months p.o


  • Uncemented bio active surfaces are able to create an osteointegration even lately

  • After subsidence the uncemented implants can found a new and stable position

    In case of cemented TKR loosening is the only answer

    Hofmann AA et al. Ten to 14-year clinical followup of the cementless

    Natural Knee System. Clin Orthop 2001

Tilting, then stabilisationin this bad position.

Revision to correct flexion contracture

Difficulties to separate implants from bone !!


I stil use cemented tkr
I stil use cemented TKR osteointegration even lately

Constrained TKR for :

Important articular damages

Ligamentous laxity

AXEL


I stil use cemented tkr1
I stil use cemented TKR osteointegration even lately

With non constrained prostheses

PCL


I stil use cemented TKR osteointegration even lately

Uncemented

femur

With non constrained prostheses

Revision for a septic case (2 stages)

Long stems


But revisions are possible with cementless TKR osteointegration even lately

500 recent primary TKR during the same time :

66 TKR were revised

21 uncemented femurs

24 uncemented tibias


Advantages to use uncemented tkr
Advantages to use uncemented TKR osteointegration even lately

  • Uncemented femoral implant : no problem

  • Uncemented tibial implant «metal backed »

    • Good osteointegration

    • Bone stock preservation

    • Revisions are easier

      Metal back have many advantages :

    • Modularity with a polyethylene plateau that can be changed without removing the tibial implant

    • The poly wear is similar to the full poly plateau if it is thick enough and well fixed

    • The possible use of a mobile bearing


Conclusion why do i use uncementd tkr
Conclusion osteointegration even latelyWhy do I use uncementd TKR ?

In primary cases, cementless or cemented TKA are similar

Cement is usefull when the bony conditions are poor

The question is rather : Why should I use cement when it is not necessary ?


ad