Impact of polyethylene glenoid cementation technique on cement mantle integrity and stability after cyclic loading: a computed tomography and biomechanical study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There are no generally accepted guidelines for polyethylene (PE) glenoid component cementation techniques. In particular, it is not known whether the backside of a PE glenoid should be fully or partially cemented-or not cemented at all. We hypothesized that cementing techniques would have an impact on cement mantle volume and integrity, as well as biomechanical stability, measured as micromotion under cyclic loading. METHODS: To address our hypothesis, 3 different cementation techniques using a single 2-peg PE glenoid design with polyurethane foam were compared regarding (1) the quality and quantity of the cement mantle and (2) biomechanical stability after cyclic loading in vitro. Eight identically cemented glenoids per group were used. Group A underwent cement application only into the peg holes, group B received additional complete cement mantle application on the backside of the glenoid, and group C received the same treatment as group B but with additional standardized drill holes in the surface of the glenoid bone for extra cement interdigitation. All glenoids underwent cyclic edge loading by 105 cycles according to ASTM F2028-14. Before and after loading, cement mantle evaluation was performed by XtremeCT and biomechanical strength and loosening were evaluated by measuring the relative motion of the implants. RESULTS: The cement mantle at the back of the implant was incomplete in group A as compared with groups B and C, in which the complete PE backside was covered with a homogeneous cement mantle. The cement mantle was thickest in group C, followed by group B (P = .006) and group A (P < .001). We did not detect any breakage of the cement mantle in any of the 3 groups after testing. Primary stability during cyclic loading was similar in all groups after the "running-in" phase (up to 4000 cycles). Gross loosening did not occur in any implant. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage of the PE glenoid with cement was reproducible in the fully cemented groups (ie, groups B and C) as compared with relevant cement defects in group A. The addition of cement to the back of the PE glenoid and additional drill holes in the glenoid surface did not improve primary stability in the tested setting.