4.3 Article

The influence of the twin peg design on femoral Interface temperature and maximum load to failure in cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Journal

CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS
Volume 55, Issue -, Pages 23-27

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.04.003

Keywords

Oxford twin-peg cemented knee replacement; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Anteromedial osteoarthritis; Biomechanical study; Implant stability

Funding

  1. Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The twin peg femoral component was introduced for the cemented Oxford unicondylar knee to increase implant stability. The aim of this experimental study was to investigate the influence of the twin peg design on femoral interface temperature and maximum load to failure in comparison to the single peg design. Methods: In this experimental study medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was performed in 12 pairs of fresh-frozen human knees. A cemented femoral single peg component was implanted on the one side (group A) and a cemented twin peg component on the other side (group B). Cement interface temperature was continuously monitored during the procedure. Maximum tensile forces of the femoral components were measured by pull-out tests. Findings: Maximum femoral interface temperatures did not reach critical values for heat necrosis of the bone in group A (mean 28.4, SD 1.2 degrees C) or group B (mean 27.6, SD 0.5 degrees C). The maximum load to failure was significantly higher in the twin peg group (mean 3628.41, SD 650.92 N) compared to the single peg group (mean 2979, SD 781 N) (P = 0.016). Interpretation: Our experiments showed higher load to failure for the twin peg design compared to the single peg design without raising the risk of heat necrosis at the interfacial bone. The twin peg component offers a save alternative to the single peg component in a cadaveric setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available