The use of tourniquet may influence the cement mantle thickness under the tibial implant during total knee arthroplasty
- 92 Downloads
It is still unknown whether the creation of blood-free surfaces by the use of tourniquet during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has an influence on cement penetration and on implant fixation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cement mantle under tibial component and the occurrence of progressive radiolucent lines (RLLs) according to the use of tourniquet in primary TKA.
Materials and methods
Fifty patients undergone TKA without the use of tourniquet (group 1) were well matched regarding baseline characteristics with 50 TKAs with the use of tourniquet (group 2). Patients were followed up prospectively. Cement mantle thickness was measured using immediate postoperative X-rays, and the occurrence of progressive radiolucency was finally evaluated in 3-year follow-up. New Knee Society Score (KSS) was used to compare clinical outcome between groups.
Mean cement mantle thickness was 9.27 ± 1.86 mm in group 1 versus 10.49 ± 2.31 mm in group 2 (p = 0.005). Mean cumulated width of RLLs in anterioposterior (AP) view was 7.74 ± 6.68 mm in group 1 versus 3.48 ± 4.69 mm in group 2 (p < 0.001). The percentage of RLLs in AP view was related to the cumulated cement mantle thickness in the same view (r = − 0.218, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups at the final follow-up in terms of ROM and new KSS.
Our results suggest that the use of tourniquet increased the cement mantle thickness under tibial implant and had an influence on the occurrence of RLLs in cement–bone interface, which is related to implant survivorship, with this implant design.
KeywordsTKA Tourniquet Cement Mantle thickness Fixation Stability
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Dorr LD, Lindberg JP, Claude-Faugere M et al (1984) Factors influencing the intrusion of methylmethacrylate into human tibiae. Clin Orthop Relat Res 183:147–152Google Scholar
- 2.Maistrelli GL, Antonelli L, Fornasier V, Mahomed N (1995) Cement penetration with pulsed lavage versus syringe irrigation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 312:261–265Google Scholar
- 4.Kopec M, Milbrandt JC, Duellman T, Mangan D, Allan DG (2009) Effect of hand packing versus cement gun pressurization on cement mantle in total knee arthroplasty. Can J Surg 52:490–494Google Scholar
- 6.Krause WR, Krug W, Miller J (1982) Strength of the cement-bone interface. Clin Orthop Relat Res 163:290–299Google Scholar
- 7.Walker PS, Soudry M, Ewald FC, McVickar H (1984) Control of cement penetration in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 185:155–164Google Scholar
- 20.Schneider R, Hood RW, Ranawat CS (1982) Radiologic evaluation of knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 13:225–244Google Scholar
- 21.Ecker ML, Lotke PA, Windsor RE, Cella JP (1987) Long-term results after total condylar knee arthroplasty: significance of radiolucent lines. Clin Orthop Relat Res 216:151–158Google Scholar
- 26.Ewald FC (1989) The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
- 30.Rosner B (2011) Fundamentals of biostatistics, 7th edn. Brooks/Cole, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 42.Meneghini RM, Mont MA, Backstein DB, Bourne RB, Dennis DA, Scuderi GR (2015) Development of a modern Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System and methodology for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 30:2311e4Google Scholar