Fluoride-treated rare earth-free magnesium alloy ZK30: An inert and bioresorbable material for bone fracture treatment devices.

Bone fractures represent a common health problem, particularly in an increasingly aging population. Bioresorbable magnesium (Mg) alloy-based implants offer promising alternatives to traditional metallic implants for the treatment of bone fractures because they eliminate the need for implant removal after healing. The Mg-Y-rare-earth (RE)-Zr alloy WE43, designed for orthopedic implants, has received European Conformity mark approval. However, currently, WE43 is not clinically used in certain countries possibly because of concerns related to RE metals. In this study, we investigated the use of a RE-free alloy, namely, Mg-Zn-Zr alloy (ZK30), as an implant for bone fractures. Hydrofluoric acid (HF) treatment was performed to improve the corrosion resistance of ZK30. HF-treated ZK30 (HF-ZK30) exhibited lower corrosion rate and higher biocompatibility than those of WE43 in in vitro experiments. After implanting a rod of HF-ZK30 into the fractured femoral bones of mice, HF-ZK30 held the bones and healed the fracture without deformation. Treatment results of HF-ZK30 were comparable to those of WE43, indicating the potential of HF-ZK30 as a bioresorbable and safe implant for bone repair.

Which is better? Anterior or posterior referencing for femoral component position in total knee arthroplasty.

When sizing the femoral component or determining its placement in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), if the anterior-posterior diameter of the femoral condyle is between component sizes, the selected size will differ depending on whether anterior referencing (AR) or posterior referencing (PR) is used. As a result, the amount of resected bone will also vary. In the present prospective study, we compared the two referencing methods to determine which is more suitable for individual patients. We recruited 58 patients (92 joints) who received TKA using the standard technique with intermediate-size components. AR was used in 26 joints, and PR in 23 joints. Seventeen of the patients underwent same-day bilateral TKA in which components of different sizes were used for the left and right joints. AR resulted in significantly smaller anterior and posterior offsets than PR. Preoperative clinical evaluation revealed no significant differences among cases in which intermediate-size components were indicated, or those in which components of different sizes were indicated. When an intermediate-sized component was indicated using the AR method, moving the sizer forward resulted in a larger posterior gap, but this technique was nevertheless considered acceptable. AR is likely to be more suitable than PR as it achieves more physiological anterior clearance.