ObjectivesIn order to address acetabular defects, porous metal revision acetabular components and augments have been developed, which require fixation to each other. The fixation technique that results in the smallest relative movement between the components, as well as its influence on the primary stability with the host bone, have not previously been determined.MethodsA total of 18 composite hemipelvises with a Paprosky IIB defect were implanted using a porous titanium 56 mm multihole acetabular component and 1 cm augment. Each acetabular component and augment was affixed to the bone using two screws, while the method of fixation between the acetabular component and augment varied for the three groups of six hemipelvises: group S, screw fixation only; group SC, screw plus cement fixation; group C, cement fixation only. The implanted hemipelvises were cyclically loaded to three different loading maxima (0.5 kN, 0.9 kN, and 1.8 kN).ResultsScrew fixation alone resulted in up to three times more movement (p = 0.006), especially when load was increased to 100% (p < 0.001), than with the other two fixation methods (C and SC). No significant difference was noted when a screw was added to the cement fixation. Increased load resulted in increased relative movement between the interfaces in all fixation methods (p < 0.001).ConclusionCement fixation between a porous titanium acetabular component and augment is associated with less relative movement than screw fixation alone for all implant interfaces, particularly with increasing loads. Adding a screw to the cement fixation did not offer any significant advantage. These results also show that the stability of the tested acetabular component/augment interface affects the stability of the construct that is affixed to the bone.Cite this article: N. A. Beckmann, R. G. Bitsch, M. Gondan, M. Schonhoff, S. Jaeger. Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:282–288. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.74.BJR-2017-0198.R1.

Femoral component loosening is a rare but severe complication in total knee arthroplasty. Former studies have repeatedly demonstrated radiolucent lines behind the ventral and dorsal anchoring shields of the femoral components, which has led us to investigate this matter further. Therefore, three different cementing techniques were tested in a group of nine Sawbone samples each. These differed in the amount of cement applied on the femoral component as well as in the pressure application. Computed tomography was performed to evaluate and classify the cement penetration into the bone adjacent to the prosthesis according to the zones defined by the Knee Society scoring system. The results show significantly deeper cement penetration in all zones when a pressurizer is used. In the other two groups, no significant difference in the dorsal bevel cement penetration was noted. Additionally, no difference in ventral and dorsal cement penetrations (Zones 1 and 4) was delineated. In contrast, there was a significant difference in both the ventral bevel (Zone 2) as well as the distal anchoring surface (Zones 5–7). The use of a pressurizer results in greater cement penetration into all anchoring areas. Completely covering the component back surface results in a significantly higher penetration, which is mainly due to differences in volume. These data show significantly improved cementation results when using a pressurizer. Whether this improves the biomechanical properties and ultimately the revision rate requires further investigation.

No abstract