Literature DB >> 18923883

2008 Otto Aufranc Award: component design and technique affect cement penetration in hip resurfacing.

Paul E Beaulé1, Wadih Y Matar, Philippe Poitras, Kevin Smit, Olivier May.   

Abstract

Either excessive or insufficient cement penetration within the femoral head after hip resurfacing influences the risk of femoral failures. However, the factors controlling cement penetration are not yet fully understood. We determined the effect of femoral component design and cementation technique on cement penetration. Six retrieved femoral heads were resurfaced for each implant (BHR, ASR, Conserve Plus, DuROM, ReCAP) using the manufacturers' recommendations for implantation. In addition, the BHR was implanted using the Conserve Plus high-viscosity cementation technique, "BHR/hvt," and vice versa for the Conserve, "Conserve/lvt." The average cement penetration was highest with BHR (65.62% +/- 15.16%) compared with ASR (12.25% +/- 5.12%), Conserve Plus(R) (19.43% +/- 5.28%), DuROM (17.73% +/- 3.96%), and ReCAP (26.09% +/- 5.20%). Cement penetration in BHR/hvt remained higher than all other implants equaling 36.7% +/- 6.6%. Greater femoral component design clearance correlated with cement mantle thickness. Femoral component design in hip resurfacing plays a major role in cement penetration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18923883      PMCID: PMC2600983          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0541-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  43 in total

1.  Orientation of the femoral component in surface arthroplasty of the hip. A biomechanical and clinical analysis.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Jessica L Lee; Michel J Le Duff; Harlan C Amstutz; Edward Ebramzadeh
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Vascularity of the arthritic femoral head and hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Paul E Beaulé; Pat Campbell; Zhen Lu; Katharina Leunig-Ganz; Martin Beck; Michael Leunig; Reinhold Ganz
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  The effects of technique changes on aseptic loosening of the femoral component in hip resurfacing. Results of 600 Conserve Plus with a 3 to 9 year follow-up.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Michel J Le Duff; Patricia A Campbell; Frederick J Dorey
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Investigation into the affect of cementing techniques on load transfer in the resurfaced femoral head: a multi-femur finite element analysis.

Authors:  I A J Radcliffe; M Taylor
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2007-01-31       Impact factor: 2.063

5.  In vitro measurement of bone-acrylic interface pressure during femoral component insertion.

Authors:  K L Markolf; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The cement mantle in total hip arthroplasty. Analysis of long-term radiographic results.

Authors:  E Ebramzadeh; A Sarmiento; H A McKellop; A Llinas; W Gogan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Bone cement, thermal injury and the radiolucent zone.

Authors:  B Mjöberg; H Pettersson; R Rosenqvist; A Rydholm
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1984-12

8.  Early results and complications of surface replacement of the hip.

Authors:  M N Jolley; E A Salvati; G C Brown
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1982-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Metal-on-metal hybrid surface arthroplasty: two to six-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Harlan C Amstutz; Paul E Beaulé; Frederick J Dorey; Michel J Le Duff; Pat A Campbell; Thomas A Gruen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Factors affecting the cement penetration of a hip resurfacing implant: an in vitro study.

Authors:  R Howald; U Kesteris; R Klabunde; J Krevolin
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.756

View more
  6 in total

1.  Cementation and interface analysis of early failure cases after hip-resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Matthias Krause; Stefan Breer; Michael Hahn; Wolfgang Rüther; Michael M Morlock; Michael Amling; Jozef Zustin
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  The influence of cementing technique in hip resurfacing arthroplasty on the initial stability of the femoral component.

Authors:  Rudi G Bitsch; Sebastian Jäger; Marcus Lürssen; Travis Loidolt; Thomas P Schmalzried; Stefan Weiss
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Two-year migration results of the ReCap hip resurfacing system-a radiostereometric follow-up study of 23 hips.

Authors:  Thomas Baad-Hansen; Stig Storgaard Jakobsen; Kjeld Soballe
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-02-27       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Groin pain after metal on metal hip resurfacing: mid-term follow-up of a prospective cohort of patients.

Authors:  Emmanuel Illical; Heather Belanger; Paul R Kim; Paul E Beaulé
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-09-26

5.  Femoral component loosening after hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jozef Zustin; Michael Hahn; Michael M Morlock; Wolfgang Rüther; Michael Amling; Guido Sauter
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Inferior outcome after hip resurfacing arthroplasty than after conventional arthroplasty. Evidence from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, 1995 to 2007.

Authors:  Per-Erik Johanson; Anne Marie Fenstad; Ove Furnes; Göran Garellick; Leif I Havelin; Sören Overgaard; Alma B Pedersen; Johan Kärrholm
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 3.717

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.