title: Loss of cement-bone interlock in retrieved tibial components from total knee arthroplasties.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Aseptic loosening continues to be a short- and long-term complication for patients with cemented TKAs. Most studies to this point have evaluated tibial component fixation via radiographic changes at the implant-bone interface and quantification of component migration; direct assessment of morphologic features of the interface from functioning TKAs may provide new information regarding how TKAs function and are fixed to bone.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  In a postmortem retrieval study, we asked: (1) What are the morphologic features at the cement-trabecular bone interface in retrieved tibial components? (2) Do constructs with greater time in service have less cement-trabecular bone interlock? (3) Do constructs with more estimated initial interlock sustain more interlock with in vivo service?
  
  
  METHODS
  Fourteen postmortem retrieved tibial components with time in service from 0 to 20 years were sectioned and imaged at high resolution, and the current contact fraction, estimated initial interdigitation depth, current interdigitation depth, and loss of interdigitation depth were quantified at the cement-bone interface. Estimated initial interdigitation depth was calculated from the initial mold shape of the cement mantle that forms around the individual trabeculae at the time of surgery. Loss of interdigitation depth was the difference between the initial and current interdigitation depth.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was resorption of trabeculae that initially interlocked with the cement in the postmortem retrievals as evidenced by the differences between current interdigitation and the estimated original interdigitation. The current contact fraction (r(2) = 0.54; p = 0.0027) and current interdigitation depth (r(2) = 0.33; p = 0.033) were less for constructs with longer time in service. The current contact fraction for implants with 10 or more years in service (6.2%; 95% CI, 4.7%-7.7%) was much less than implants with less than 10 years in service (22.9%; 95% CI, 8.9%-37%). Similarly, the current interdigitation depth for implants with 10 or more years in service (0.4 mm; 95% CI, 0.27-0.53 mm) was much less than implants with less than 10 years in service (1.13 mm; 95% CI, 0.48-1.78 mm). The loss of interdigitation depth had a strong positive relationship with time in service (r(2) = 0.74; p < 0.001). Using a two-parameter regression model, constructs with more initial interdigitation depth had greater current interdigitation depth (p = 0.011), but constructs with more time in service also had less current interdigitation depth (p = 0.008).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The cement-trabecular bone interlock obtained initially appears to diminish with time with in vivo service by resorption of the trabeculae in the cement interlock region.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our study supports the surgical concept of obtaining sufficient initial cement interlock (approximately 3 mm), with the acknowledgment that there will be loss of interlock with time with in vivo service.
authors: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SUNY Upstate Medical University, 3216 IHP, 750 East Adams Street, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA.
authors: Mark A
authors: MA
authors: Miller
authors: Jacklyn R
authors: JR
authors: Goodheart
authors: Timothy H
authors: TH
authors: Izant
authors: Clare M
authors: CM
authors: Rimnac
authors: Richard J
authors: RJ
authors: Cleary
authors: Kenneth A
authors: KA
authors: Mann
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; D001843:Bone Cements; D002484:Cementation; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007720:Knee Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D013977:Tibia / Q000601:surgery*
chemical_list: D001843:Bone Cements
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994 Jan;76(1):60-5
references: 8288666
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Feb 1;94(3):201-7
references: 22298051
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Mar 6;95(5):385-92
references: 23344005
references: Bone Joint J. 2013 Mar;95-B(3):295-300
references: 23450010
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984 May;(185):155-64
references: 6705374
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 Aug;85(6):906-12
references: 12931817
references: J Orthop Res. 2010 Feb;28(2):170-7
references: 19658167
references: J Biomed Mater Res. 2000 Oct;52(1):210-8
references: 10906694
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Jan;(430):12-27
references: 15662300
references: J Orthop Res. 2000 Jan;18(1):40-7
references: 10716277
references: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992 Jan;(274):60-78
references: 1729024
references: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2012 Nov;27(9):929-35
references: 22819669
references: J Arthroplasty. 2001 Jan;16(1):107-11
references: 11172279
references: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1970 May;52(2):340-53
references: 5445416
references: J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2002 Aug;13(8):803-9
references: 15348569
references: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5
references: 17403800
references: J Orthop Res. 2012 Jul;30(7):1155-61
references: 22180341
references: Int Orthop. 2011 Aug;35(8):1165-9
references: 20953784
references: Acta Orthop. 2006 Aug;77(4):607-16
references: 16929438
references: Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin. 2014;17(16):1809-20
references: 23480611
references: J Biomech. 2012 Feb 23;45(4):711-5
references: 22227315