A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Micromotion Analysis of Various Tibial Constructs in Moderate Tibial Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. | LitMetric

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the micromotion of various tibial reconstruction strategies including short cemented and long cementless stems with or without metaphyseal augmentation.

Methods: A moderate tibial bone defect was milled into dual density polyurethane test blocks. Mechanical testing was performed on 4 test constructs: (1) short cemented stem (75-mm total length) alone; (2) short cemented stem with a symmetric metaphyseal cone; (3) a press-fit (175-mm total length) diaphyseal engaging tibial construct without a cone, and (4) the same press-fit tibial construct with a metaphyseal cone augment. Micromotion of the baseplate/cone construct with respect to the tibia block was measured during a stair descent loading profile for 10,000 cycles. The peak-to-peak micromotion of these various tibial constructs was compared. Unpaired t-tests were used to evaluate differences in peak-to-peak micromotion among the various tibial constructs tested. An analysis of variance was performed for final validation.

Results: The cemented short stem demonstrated similar varus/valgus displacement, internal/external rotation, compression, and lift-off micromotion values under loading compared to a cementless long stem. A tibial cone improved compression and lift-off micromotion for both cemented and cementless constructs. A short 50-mm cemented stem with a cone demonstrated a lower micromotion at the anterior SI location compared to a press-fit 150-mm cementless stem without a tibial cone.

Conclusions: A short cemented tibial component with a cone achieved similar micromotion during simulated stair descent compared to a cementless diaphyseal press-fit implant in cases of moderate tibial defects.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.013DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

short cemented
16
tibial
12
tibial constructs
12
moderate tibial
12
micromotion tibial
12
cemented stem
12
micromotion
9
tibial defects
8
constructs short
8
total length
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!