Pulsed lavage is associated with better quality of bone–cement–implant interface in knee arthroplasties (TKA/UKA) compared to syringe lavage in vitro; however, clinical data are missing: A systematic review

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this systematic review is to analyse the available literature to ascertain the optimal method of bone preparation to improve the quality of bone–cement–implant interface with either pulsed lavage or syringe lavage in both total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted across MEDLINE, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2023. Both inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and used to identify all the published studies. Subsequent screening throughout the title, abstract and full text was made, followed by complete critical appraisal and data extraction. This sequential process was performed by two reviewers independently and summarised following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines). A quality assessment of the systematic review was performed according to the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies scale (QUACS), reaching a quality level ranging from 69% to 85%.ResultsA total of 10 articles, out of 47, nine biomechanical cadaveric studies and one human clinical study were analysed. A total of 196 UKA tibial components, 74 patellar components, 36 TKA tibial components and 24 UKA femoral components were retrieved, and a high level of heterogeneity resulted overall. The pulsed lavage group showed better cement penetration and higher pull‐out force than the syringe lavage group; a higher interface temperature was also found in the pulsed lavage group. No differences were found regarding tension ligament forces between the groups.ConclusionOur systematic review suggests that pulsed lavage is superior to syringe lavage in terms of the quality of bone–cement–implant interface in knee arthroplasties (TKA/UKA). However, translation of these results from cadaveric studies to individual clinical settings may be hazardous; therefore, clinical in vivo prospective studies are highly needed.PROSPERO CRDPROSPERO CRD number CRD42023432399Level of EvidenceLevel III.