Introduction: In recent retrieval studies over-penetration of cement, incomplete seating of the prosthesis with a resultant polar cement mass, or both, have been associated with femoral failures of current generation resurfacing arthroplasties. We developed a laboratory model to analyze differences in cement penetration, cement pressures and interface temperatures for hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Materials and Methods: A carbon foam was demonstrated to closely simulate human femoral heads. Custom aluminum shells were made by DePuy with the same inner geometry as the femoral resurfacing components. (ASR™ system, Size 49, DePuy; Leeds, England).

Analyses of six different cementing techniques (cemtech) were performed using high viscosity (HVC) (Smart Set GHV, DePuy, Blackpool, England) and low viscosity cement (LVC) (Endurance, DePuy, Blackpool, England):

Manual application HVC

A force of 150N was used to press five shells in each cemtech group on foam specimens. During seating cement pressures and polymerization heat 5 mm under the foam surface were measured.

Specimens were cut into quarters, surfaces were digitalized and cement penetration areas and depths were quantified using a pixel-analysis-software. The effects of the cemtech were examined by Kruscal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney-U-tests (two-sided, p-value< 0.05, SPSS)

Results: The mean cement pressures increased going from cemtech A to E. HVC cemtech C and E showed higher pressures than the comparable LVC cemtech B and D.

Maximum temperatures were A) 36.0± 4.1°C, B) 45.0±5.7°C, C) 36.2±4.2°C, D) 53.5±2.5°C, E) 48.3±6.5°C and F) 53.2±12.6°C. D, E and F exceeded 50°C.

A provided even cement penetration over the available fixation area without involvement of the internal area and the stem. Cemtech that used LVC cement (B, D and F) showed higher interior area cement contents than HVC (A, E and C). The cement content in the interior area was A) 39.3±26.4mm2, B) 72.1±16.9mm2, C) 37.7±10.5mm2, D) 99.0±24.6mm2, E) 67.5±15.6mm2 and F) 121.0±29.0mm2.

A showed mainly complete seating with a cement mantle thickness of 0.5±0.7 mm. All other cemtech had incomplete seating in all specimens with significantly thicker polar cement mantles (p=0.032) up to a maximum of 4.6±1.2mm for E.

Discussion: Component filling cemtech and LVC resulted in variable degrees of over-penetration, exposure to high temperatures or a risk for incomplete seating, which have been associated with bone necrosis and early fracture. The use of the manual application and HVC cement showed clear advantages in our model. It was possible to utilize all of the available fixation area without negative effects.

Introduction: The medial unicompartmental knee prosthesis (UKA) is less invasive than total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and preserves undamaged structures of the joint. The range of movement and recovery are better in UKA, while postoperative pain reduction is at least equal to TKA. UKA have a higher revision rate than TKA (15% vs 10% after 10 years). One main reason for revision is mechanical loosening¹. There is a paucity of information regarding cement fixation of UKA. We compared jet lavage to conventional lavage with focus on cement pressures, interface temperatures and cement penetration.

Materials and Methods: UKA was performed in 10 paired entire human cadaver legs (Oxford Phase III, Biomet, Dordrecht, NL). Customized tibial implants and a pressure probe insert were used to measure the cement pressure anterior, posterior and near the implant fin during implantation and polymerisation. A drilling and fixation jig was used for standardized positioning of the three temperature probes. The polymerization heat was measured 5 mm below the bone surface at the medial and lateral plateau as well as under the fin. The same cementing technique was performed for all knees using Refobacin^® Bone Cement R. One side of the paired knees was cleaned using jet lavage, contra lateral cleaning was done with conventional lavage. The lavage volume was equal for both

Methods: AP radiographs were taken and digitalized to quantify the cement penetration areas and depths, using a pixel-analysis-software. Group comparisons were done with the Wilcoxon-Test using SPSS (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).

Results: Average cement pressure under the tibial implant is significantly higher for conventional lavage (avg cement pressure 25.69 ± 17.85 kPa, p= 0.005) than for jet lavage (avg cement pressure 13.28 ± 12.82 kPa). Mean temperature increase measured 5 mm below the bone surface medial and lateral, as well as under the implant fin, were statistically significant higher for the cementing technique with jet lavage (lat. 14.10 ± 5.72°C, p= 0.018/med. 8.49 ± 4.20°C, p= 0.176/fin 5.95 ± 1.92°C, p= 0.063) than for the conventional lavage (lat. 9.42 ± 5.17°C/med. 6.42 ± 2.21°C/fin 3.96 ± 2.03°C). On AP radiographs, cement penetration areas under the tibial implant were significantly higher for jet lavage (penetration area: 122.15 ± 33.94 sq mm, p= 0.046) than for conventional lavage (penetration area: 89.82 ± 23.92 sq mm).

Discussion: The use of jet lavage showed clear advantages in our cadaver studies. Jet lavage resulted in higher cement penetration despite of lower cement pressures under the tibial implant. The higher cement penetration lead to higher interface temperatures but exposure to high temperatures over 50 °C with a risk for bone necrosis could not be measured.