header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

General Orthopaedics

BONE INGROWTH IN RETRIEVED POROUS COATED TIBIAL TRAYS

International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty (ISTA) meeting, 32nd Annual Congress, Toronto, Canada, October 2019. Part 1 of 2.



Abstract

Introduction

Long term data on the survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has demonstrated excellent outcomes; however, with younger, more active patients, surgeons have a renewed interest in improved biologic fixation obtained from highly porous, cementless implants. Early designs of cementless total knees systems were fraught with high rates of failure for aseptic loosening, particularly on the tibial component. Prior studies have assessed the bone ingrowth extent for tibial tray designs reporting near 30% extent of bone ingrowth (1,2). While these analyses were performed on implants that demonstrated unacceptably high rates of clinical failure, a paucity of data exists on the extent on bone ingrowth in contemporary implant designs with newer methods for manufacturing the porous surfaces. We sought to evaluate the extent of attached bone on retrieved cementless tibial trays to determine if patient demographics, device factors, or radiographic results correlate to the extent of bone ingrowth in these contemporary designs.

Methods

Using our IRB approved retrieval database, 17 porous tibial trays were identified and separated into groups based on manufacturer: Zimmer Natural Knee (1), Zimmer NexGen (10), Stryker Triathlon (4) and Biomet Vanguard Regenerex (2). Differences in manufacturing methods for porous material designs were recorded. Patient demographics and reason for revision are described in Table 1. Radiographs were used to measure tibiofemoral alignment and the tibial mechanical axis alignment. Components were assessed using visual light microscopy and Photoshop to map bone ingrowth extent across the porous surface. ImageJ was used to threshold and calculate values for bone, scratched metal, and available surface for bone ingrowth (Fig. 1). Percent extent was determined as the bone ingrowth compared to the surface area excluding any scratched regions from explantation. Statistics were performed among tray designs as well as between the lateral and medial pegs, if designs had pegs available for bony ingrowth.

Results

Mean bone ingrowth extent was 51.4% for the tibial tray for the entire cohort. Bone ingrowth extent was statistically greater in the Zimmer NexGen design (63.8%; p=.027) compared to the other three designs (Table 2). Four sets of pegs were excluded from analysis due to lack of porous coatings or pegs having been removed at revision surgery. Across all designs, the medial peg had 45.2% ingrowth and the lateral peg had 66.1% ingrowth. The medial peg for the NexGen design had significantly less bone ingrowth compared to the lateral peg (58.7% vs. 75.4%; p=0.044). No significant differences were found in tibiofemoral alignment or tibial mechanical axis alignment between the implant groups. No significant differences were found among implants revised for aseptic loosening versus any other reason for revision (54% vs 30%; p=.18).

Discussion

Our results demonstrate high rates of bone ingrowth extent in contemporary designs, further supporting porous design rationales and a role for additive manufacturing to form enhanced porosity. We plan on exploring staining techniques to confirm our visual inspection. Contemporary designs have shown successful rates for improved longevity for cementless total knee systems.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.