The effects of tourniquet on cement penetration in total knee arthroplasty

• Published in: Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery Vol. 143; no. 6; pp. 2877 - 2884
• Main Authors: Zak, Stephen G., Tang, Alex, Pivec, Robert, Meftah, Morteza, Austin, Matthew S., Schnaser, Erik, Schwarzkopf, Ran
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.06.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods; Bone Cements; Cement; Humans; Ions; Joint replacement surgery; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Orthopaedic Surgery; Orthopedics; Radiography; Retrospective Studies; Tourniquets; Tourniquet; Cement penetration; Total knee arthroplasty
• ISSN: 1434-3916; 0936-8051; 1434-3916
• DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04470-w

Purpose Aseptic loosening is a common cause of implant failure following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement penetration depth is a known factor that determines an implant’s “strength” and plays an important role in preventing aseptic loosening. Tourniquet use is thought to facilitate cement penetration, but its use has mixed reviews. The aim of this study was to compare cement penetration depth between tourniquet and tourniquet-less TKA patients. Methods A multicenter retrospective review was conducted. Patients were randomized preoperatively to undergo TKA with or without the use of an intraoperative tourniquet. The variables collected were cement penetration measurements in millimeters (mm) within a 1-month post-operative period, length of stay (LOS), and baseline demographics. Measurements were taken by two independent raters and made in accordance to the zones described by the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System and methodology used in previous studies. Results A total of 357 TKA patients were studied. No demographic differences were found between tourniquet ( n  = 189) and tourniquet-less ( n  = 168) cohorts. However, the tourniquet cohort had statistically, but not clinically, greater average cement penetration depth [2.4 ± 0.6 mm (range 1.2–4.1 mm) vs. 2.2 ± 0.5 mm (range 1.0–4.3 mm, p  = 0.01)]. Moreover, the tourniquet cohort had a significantly greater proportion of patients with an average penetration depth within the accepted zone of 2 mm or greater (78.9% vs. 67.3%, p  = 0.02). Conclusion Tourniquet use does not affect average penetration depth but increases the likelihood of achieving optimal cement penetration depth. Further study is warranted to determine whether this increased likelihood of optimal cement penetration depth yields lower revision rates.