Aseptic loosening of the option stemmed tibial tray in the Zimmer NexGen LPS total knee arthroplasty system.
Deformation
Knee arthroplasty
Polyethylene
Retrieval analysis
Tibial tray loosening
Journal
The Knee
ISSN: 1873-5800
Titre abrégé: Knee
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9430798
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jan 2024
02 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
12
09
2023
revised:
05
12
2023
accepted:
08
12
2023
medline:
4
1
2024
pubmed:
4
1
2024
entrez:
3
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
We investigated the relationship between the backside deformation of polyethylene (PE) tibial inserts and aseptic loosening of the Option stemmed tibial tray used with Zimmer NexGen posterior-stabilised (PS) devices. We hypothesized that explanted inserts used in PS designs would exhibit greater extents of PE backside deformation than those used in equivalent cruciate retaining (CR) designs and that PE inserts retrieved from total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) revised for aseptic tibial tray loosening would exhibit greater extents of backside deformation than TKAs revised for other reasons. A total of 73 explanted fixed-bearing TKAs (42 CR and 31 PS) were examined. PE components underwent geometric examination with a coordinate measuring machine using validated techniques. Multiple regression modelling was used to identify variables associated with revision secondary to aseptic loosing and to determine factors associated with increased PE backside deformation. PE inserts retrieved from TKAs with aseptic loosening had significantly greater backside deformation than those retrieved from TKAs revised for other reasons (p < 0.001). Greater PE backside deformation was significantly associated with larger tray/insert clearance heights (p < 0.001), thinner inserts (p < 0.001) and PS TKAs (p = 0.001). PE backside deformation was significantly greater in the PS TKAs. This may provide one explanation for the increased rate of aseptic loosening reported with the Option tibial tray used with the Legacy Posterior Stabilised (LPS) system.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
We investigated the relationship between the backside deformation of polyethylene (PE) tibial inserts and aseptic loosening of the Option stemmed tibial tray used with Zimmer NexGen posterior-stabilised (PS) devices. We hypothesized that explanted inserts used in PS designs would exhibit greater extents of PE backside deformation than those used in equivalent cruciate retaining (CR) designs and that PE inserts retrieved from total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) revised for aseptic tibial tray loosening would exhibit greater extents of backside deformation than TKAs revised for other reasons.
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 73 explanted fixed-bearing TKAs (42 CR and 31 PS) were examined. PE components underwent geometric examination with a coordinate measuring machine using validated techniques. Multiple regression modelling was used to identify variables associated with revision secondary to aseptic loosing and to determine factors associated with increased PE backside deformation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
PE inserts retrieved from TKAs with aseptic loosening had significantly greater backside deformation than those retrieved from TKAs revised for other reasons (p < 0.001). Greater PE backside deformation was significantly associated with larger tray/insert clearance heights (p < 0.001), thinner inserts (p < 0.001) and PS TKAs (p = 0.001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
PE backside deformation was significantly greater in the PS TKAs. This may provide one explanation for the increased rate of aseptic loosening reported with the Option tibial tray used with the Legacy Posterior Stabilised (LPS) system.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38171206
pii: S0968-0160(23)00261-2
doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2023.12.004
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-12Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: ‘None. R.M.B., S.R.W., M.E.N., S.S., and D.J.L. are ExplantLab employees. ExplantLab is a company which analyses removed orthopaedic products as a supplier to the National Health Service of the United Kingdom’.