| Literature DB >> 30715569 |
T A Murphy1, J A Mathews2, M R Whitehouse2,3,4, R P Baker2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Curettage with cement augmentation is a technique used in the treatment of bone tumours. Thermal energy released during the cement polymerisation process can damage surrounding tissues. This study aims to record temperature changes at various sites on and around bone during the cementing process. We hypothesised that adjacent structures, such as the radial nerve, may be threatened by this process in the clinical setting.Entities:
Keywords: Cement; Curettage; Long bone tumours; Radial nerve damage; Thermal energy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30715569 PMCID: PMC6647233 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-019-03129-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ISSN: 0936-8051 Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1Porcine femur showing 12-mm/12-mm window
Fig. 2Porcine femur demonstrating ‘fracture line’ extending to anterior cortex
Fig. 3Demonstrates experimental set-up, with and without fracture
Fig. 4Showing thermocouple set-up at proposed site of radial nerve
Fig. 5Porcine femur showing cavity filled with cement
Spearman rank correlations between thermal camera and thermocouple data for each sample (samples 17 and 19 were excluded due to incomplete data)
| Sample | Therm 1 | Therm 2 | Therm 3 | Therm 4 | Therm 5 | Therm 6 | Therm 7 | Therm 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (no#) | 0.94 | 0.99 | 0.83 | 0.61 | 0.99 | 0.93 | 0.61 | 0.49 |
| 2 (no#) | 0.98 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.85 | 0.98 | 0.77 | 0.46 | 0.10 |
| 3 (no#) | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.98 | 0.89 | 0.86 | 0.07 |
| 4 (no#) | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.47 | 0.41 |
| 5 (no#) | 0.95 | 0.96 | 0.93 | 0.93 | 0.97 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.85 |
| 6 (no#) | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.89 |
| 7 (no#) | 0.98 | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.53 | 0.96 | 0.78 | 0.69 | 0.20 |
| 15 (no#) | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.95 | 0.94 | 0.73 | 0.56 | 0.25 | − 0.58 |
| 16 (no#) | 0.89 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.97 | 0.79 | 0.52 | 0.13 |
| 8 (#) | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.96 | 0.65 | 0.51 | − 0.06 |
| 9 (#) | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 0.65 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.88 | 0.78 |
| 10 (#) | 0.91 | 0.95 | 0.76 | 0.61 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 0.79 | 0.60 |
| 11 (#) | 0.96 | 0.79 | 0.74 | 0.73 | 0.96 | 0.81 | 0.75 | 0.53 |
| 12 (#) | 0.99 | 0.75 | 0.71 | 0.69 | 0.91 | 0.58 | − 0.02 | − 0.83 |
| 13 (#) | 0.98 | 0.97 | 0.89 | 0.67 | 0.99 | 0.85 | 0.43 | − 0.67 |
| 14 (#) | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.84 | 0.89 | 0.31 | − 0.08 | − 0.79 |
| 18 (#) | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.91 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.60 |
| 20 (#) | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.91 | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.83 |
Mann–Whitney two-tailed p value test for difference between samples with and without a fracture by thermal camera or thermocouple
| Median (IQR) temperature (°C) of samples with no fracture | Median (IQR) temperature (°C) of samples with a fracture | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Thermal camera | 25.9 (22.8–44.4) | 34.6 (24.4–43.7) | 0.028 |
| Thermocouple 1 | 26.2 (21.3–44.2) | 35.7 (23.2–42.7) | 0.24 |
| Thermocouple 2 | 21.2 (20.2–29.6) | 25.0 (21.7–30.1) | 0.0005 |
| Thermocouple 3 | 20.3 (19.6–25.1) | 22.7 (21.2–27.8) | < 0.0001 |
| Thermocouple 4 | 19.3 (19.0–21.4) | 22.7 (21.2–27.8) | < 0.0001 |
| Thermocouple 5 | 21.6 (20.4–30.2) | 25.1 (21.4–30.3) | 0.0047 |
| Thermocouple 6 | 20.3 (20.1–23.3) | 21.8 (21.2–26.2) | < 0.0001 |
| Thermocouple 7 | 20.2 (20.1–21.4) | 21.3 (21.1–23.7) | < 0.0001 |
| Thermocouple 8 | 20.0 (19.8–20.4) | 21.1 (20.8–21.6) | < 0.0001 |
Fig. 6Graph showing thermal imaging camera data against time with 95% confidence intervals plotted. Programme used: statsmodels.org and matplotlib version 3.0.2
Fig. 7Graph showing thermal imaging camera data against time with one standard deviation plotted. Programme used: pandas.pydata and matplotlib version 3.0.2