Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is widely used in joint arthroplasty to secure an implant to the host bone. Complications including fracture, bone loss and infection might cause failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), resulting in the need for revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The goals of this paper are: (1) to identify the most common complications, outside of sepsis, arising from the application of PMMA following rTKA, (2) to discuss the current applications and drawbacks of employing PMMA in managing bone loss, (3) to review the role of PMMA in addressing bone infection following complications in rTKA. Papers published between 1970 to 2018 have been considered through searching in Springer, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, Engineering village, PubMed and weblinks. This review considers the use of PMMA as both a bone void filler and as a spacer material in two-stage revision. To manage bone loss, PMMA is widely used to fill peripheral bone defects whose depth is less than 5 mm and covers less than 50% of the bone surface. Treatment of bone infections with PMMA is mainly for two-stage rTKA where antibiotic-loaded PMMA is inserted as a spacer. This review also shows that using antibiotic-loaded PMMA might cause complications such as toxicity to surrounding tissue, incomplete antibiotic agent release from the PMMA, roughness and bacterial colonization on the surface of PMMA. Although PMMA is the only commercial bone cement used in rTKA, there are concerns associated with using PMMA following rTKA. More research and clinical studies are needed to address these complications.

The study aimed to prepare imatinib mesylate-loaded polybutylcyanoacrylate (PBCA) nanoparticles and evaluate their efficacy on leukemia cell line K562. The formulation was prepared by miniemulsion polymerization technique. Nanoparticles were characterized by dynamic light scattering (DLS), spectrophotometry, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), dialysis membrane, and 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-Yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) techniques. Nanoscale particles with high encapsulation efficiency (86%) and physical entrapment of drug were observed. In addition, nanoparticles showed suitable drug retention capability and potentiate the cytotoxicity effects of imatinib mesylate. Findings of study suggested PBCA nanoparticles are promising carrier for imatinib mesylate delivery to leukemia cell line K562.

Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) bone cement is used as a minor void filler in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The application of PMMA is indicated only for peripheral bone defects with less than 5 mm depth and that cover less than 50% of the bone surface. Treating bone defects with PMMA results in complications as a result of volumetric shrinkage, bone necrosis, and aseptic loosening. These concerns have driven the development of alternative bone cements. We report here on novel modified glass polyalkenoate cements (mGPCs) containing 1, 5 and 15 wt% calcium sulfate (CaSO 4) and how the modified cements' properties compare to those of PMMA used in rTKA. CaSO 4 is incorporated into the mGPC to improve both osteoconductivity and bioresorbability. The results confirm that the incorporation of CaSO 4 into mGPCs decreases the setting time and increases release of therapeutic ions such as Ca 2+ and Zn 2+ over 30 days of maturation in deionized (DI) water. Moreover, the compressive strength for 5 and 15 wt% CaSO 4 addition increased to over 30 MPa after 30 day maturation. Although the overall initial compressive strength of the mGPC (~30 MPa) is less than PMMA (~95 MPa), the compressive strength of mGPC is closer to that of cancellous bone (~1.2-7.8 MPa). CaSO 4 addition did not affect biaxial flexural strength. Fourier transform infrared analysis indicated no crosslinking between CaSO 4 and the GPC after 30 days. in vivo tests are required to determine the effects the modified GPCs as alternative on PMMA in rTKA. K E Y W O R D S bone cement, bone loss, calcium sulfate, glass polyalkenoate cement, PMMA, revision total knee arthroplasty 1 | INTRODUCTION Failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) requires revision TKA (rTKA) to improve the function of the knee, reduce patient pain and manage both bone loss and infection (Fehring et al., 2008). According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), among 84,770 (35,945, excluding patella) rTKAs performed between 2012 and 2017, main reasons for revision were infection (38.4%), instability (22.7%) and aseptic loosening (16.5%) (Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2018). The bone cement routinely used in rTKA is poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA)

<p>Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is used to manage bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). However, the application of PMMA has been associated with complications such as volumetric shrinkage, necrosis, wear debris, and loosening. Glass polyalkenoate cements (GPCs) have potential bone cementation applications. Unlike PMMA, GPC does not undergo volumetric shrinkage, adheres chemically to bone, and does not undergo an exothermic setting reaction. In this study, two different compositions of GPCs (GPCA and GPCB), based on the patented glass system SiO2-CaO-SrO-P2O5-Ta2O5, were investigated. Working and setting times, pH, ion release, compressive strength, and cytotoxicity of each composition were assessed, and based on the results of these tests, three sets of samples from GPCA were implanted into the distal femur and proximal tibia of three sheep (alongside PMMA as control). Clinical CT scans and micro-CT images obtained at 0, 6, and 12 weeks revealed the varied radiological responses of sheep bone to GPCA. One GPCA sample (implanted in the sheep for 12 weeks) was characterized with no bone resorption. Furthermore, a continuous bone–cement interface was observed in the CT images of this sample. The other implanted GPCA showed a thin radiolucent border at six weeks, indicating some bone resorption occurred. The third sample showed extensive bone resorption at both six and 12 weeks. Possible speculative factors that might be involved in the varied response can be: excessive Zn2+ ion release, low pH, mixing variability, and difficulty in inserting the samples into different parts of the sheep bone.</p>

<p>Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is widely used in joint arthroplasty to secure an implant to the host bone. Complications including fracture, bone loss and infection might cause failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), resulting in the need for revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The goals of this paper are: (1) to identify the most common complications, outside of sepsis, arising from the application of PMMA following rTKA, (2) to discuss the current applications and drawbacks of employing PMMA in managing bone loss, (3) to review the role of PMMA in addressing bone infection following complications in rTKA. Papers published between 1970 to 2018 have been considered through searching in Springer, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, Engineering village, PubMed and weblinks. This review considers the use of PMMA as both a bone void filler and as a spacer material in two-stage revision. To manage bone loss, PMMA is widely used to fill peripheral bone defects whose depth is less than 5 mm and covers less than 50% of the bone surface. Treatment of bone infections with PMMA is mainly for two-stage rTKA where antibiotic-loaded PMMA is inserted as a spacer. This review also shows that using antibiotic-loaded PMMA might cause complications such as toxicity to surrounding tissue, incomplete antibiotic agent release from the PMMA, roughness and bacterial colonization on the surface of PMMA. Although PMMA is the only commercial bone cement used in rTKA, there are concerns associated with using PMMA following rTKA. More research and clinical studies are needed to address these complications.</p>

<p>Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is widely used in joint arthroplasty to secure an implant to the host bone. Complications including fracture, bone loss and infection might cause failure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), resulting in the need for revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The goals of this paper are: (1) to identify the most common complications, outside of sepsis, arising from the application of PMMA following rTKA, (2) to discuss the current applications and drawbacks of employing PMMA in managing bone loss, (3) to review the role of PMMA in addressing bone infection following complications in rTKA. Papers published between 1970 to 2018 have been considered through searching in Springer, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, Engineering village, PubMed and weblinks. This review considers the use of PMMA as both a bone void filler and as a spacer material in two-stage revision. To manage bone loss, PMMA is widely used to fill peripheral bone defects whose depth is less than 5 mm and covers less than 50% of the bone surface. Treatment of bone infections with PMMA is mainly for two-stage rTKA where antibiotic-loaded PMMA is inserted as a spacer. This review also shows that using antibiotic-loaded PMMA might cause complications such as toxicity to surrounding tissue, incomplete antibiotic agent release from the PMMA, roughness and bacterial colonization on the surface of PMMA. Although PMMA is the only commercial bone cement used in rTKA, there are concerns associated with using PMMA following rTKA. More research and clinical studies are needed to address these complications.</p>

Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is used to manage bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). However, the application of PMMA has been associated with complications such as volumetric shrinkage, necrosis, wear debris, and loosening. Glass polyalkenoate cements (GPCs) have potential bone cementation applications. Unlike PMMA, GPC does not undergo volumetric shrinkage, adheres chemically to bone, and does not undergo an exothermic setting reaction. In this study, two different compositions of GPCs (GPCA and GPCB), based on the patented glass system SiO2-CaO-SrO-P2O5-Ta2O5, were investigated. Working and setting times, pH, ion release, compressive strength, and cytotoxicity of each composition were assessed, and based on the results of these tests, three sets of samples from GPCA were implanted into the distal femur and proximal tibia of three sheep (alongside PMMA as control). Clinical CT scans and micro-CT images obtained at 0, 6, and 12 weeks revealed the varied radiological responses of sheep bone to GPCA. One GPCA sample (implanted in the sheep for 12 weeks) was characterized with no bone resorption. Furthermore, a continuous bone–cement interface was observed in the CT images of this sample. The other implanted GPCA showed a thin radiolucent border at six weeks, indicating some bone resorption occurred. The third sample showed extensive bone resorption at both six and 12 weeks. Possible speculative factors that might be involved in the varied response can be: excessive Zn2+ ion release, low pH, mixing variability, and difficulty in inserting the samples into different parts of the sheep bone.

<p>Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) is used to manage bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). However, the application of PMMA has been associated with complications such as volumetric shrinkage, necrosis, wear debris, and loosening. Glass polyalkenoate cements (GPCs) have potential bone cementation applications. Unlike PMMA, GPC does not undergo volumetric shrinkage, adheres chemically to bone, and does not undergo an exothermic setting reaction. In this study, two different compositions of GPCs (GPCA and GPCB), based on the patented glass system SiO2-CaO-SrO-P2O5-Ta2O5, were investigated. Working and setting times, pH, ion release, compressive strength, and cytotoxicity of each composition were assessed, and based on the results of these tests, three sets of samples from GPCA were implanted into the distal femur and proximal tibia of three sheep (alongside PMMA as control). Clinical CT scans and micro-CT images obtained at 0, 6, and 12 weeks revealed the varied radiological responses of sheep bone to GPCA. One GPCA sample (implanted in the sheep for 12 weeks) was characterized with no bone resorption. Furthermore, a continuous bone–cement interface was observed in the CT images of this sample. The other implanted GPCA showed a thin radiolucent border at six weeks, indicating some bone resorption occurred. The third sample showed extensive bone resorption at both six and 12 weeks. Possible speculative factors that might be involved in the varied response can be: excessive Zn2+ ion release, low pH, mixing variability, and difficulty in inserting the samples into different parts of the sheep bone.</p>