Literature DB >> 33571251

The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study.

Marcin Ceynowa1, Krzysztof Zerdzicki2, Pawel Klosowski2, Maciej Zrodowski1, Rafal Pankowski1, Marek Roclawski1, Tomasz Mazurek1.   

Abstract

This study compares the strength of the native bone-cement bond and the old-new cement bond under cyclic loading, using third generation cementing technique, rasping and contamination of the surface of the old cement with biological tissue. The possible advantages of additional drilling of the cement surface is also taken into account. Femoral heads from 21 patients who underwent a total hip arthroplasty performed for hip arthritis were used to prepare bone-cement samples. The following groups of samples were prepared. A bone-cement sample and a composite sample of a 6 weeks old cement part attached to new cement were tested 24 hours after preparation to avoid bone decay. Additionally, a uniform cement sample was prepared as control (6 weeks polymerization time) and 2 groups of cement-cement samples with and without anchoring drill hole on its surface, where the old cement polymerized for 6 weeks before preparing composite samples and then another 6 weeks after preparation. The uniaxial cyclic tension-compression tests were carried out using the Zwick-Roell Z020 testing machine. The uniform cement sample had the highest ultimate force of all specimens (n = 15; Rm = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; Rm = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; Rm = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; Rm = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; Rm = 890 N; p < 0.001). This study shows that the bond between the old and new cement was stronger than the bond between cement and bone. This suggests that it is better to leave the cement that is not loosened from the bone and perform cement in cement revision, than compromising bone stock by removal of the old cement with the resulting weaker cement-bone interface. The results support performing cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty The drill holes in the old cement mantle decrease cement binding strength and are not recommended in this type of surgery.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33571251      PMCID: PMC7877659          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246740

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  34 in total

1.  Revision of the cemented femoral stem using a cement-in-cement technique: a five- to 15-year review.

Authors:  W W Duncan; M J W Hubble; J R Howell; S L Whitehouse; A J Timperley; G A Gie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-05

2.  In vitro cyclic testing of the Exeter stem after cement within cement revision.

Authors:  Lance Jon Wilson; Cameron Gordon Roodveldt Bell; Patrick Weinrauch; Ross Crawford
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-06-04       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Cement-within-cement revision hip arthroplasty; should it be done?

Authors:  P L Li; P J Ingle; J K Dowell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1996-09

4.  The Exeter Short Revision Stem for Cement-in-Cement Femoral Revision: A Five to Twelve Year Review.

Authors:  Adam B Woodbridge; Matthew J Hubble; Sarah L Whitehouse; Matthew J Wilson; Jonathan R Howell; Andrew J Timperley
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  The early failure of the gamma nail and the dynamic hip screw in femurs with a wide medullary canal. A biomechanical study of intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Marcin Ceynowa; Krzysztof Zerdzicki; Pawel Klosowski; Rafał Pankowski; Marek Rocławski; Tomasz Mazurek
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 2.063

6.  Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem: analysis of 1179 first-time revisions in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  P H J Cnudde; J Kärrholm; O Rolfson; A J Timperley; M Mohaddes
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  Cement brand and preparation effects cement-in-cement mantle shear strength.

Authors:  Timothy P Holsgrove; Alanna Pentlow; Robert F Spencer; Anthony W Miles
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 2.135

8.  Vertically oriented femoral neck fractures: mechanical analysis of four fixation techniques.

Authors:  Arash Aminian; Fan Gao; Wasyl W Fedoriw; Li-Qun Zhang; David M Kalainov; Bradley R Merk
Journal:  J Orthop Trauma       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.512

9.  A comparative study of the effect of hydrogen peroxide versus normal saline on the strength of the bone-cement interface.

Authors:  S R Guerin; R MacNiochaill; P O'Reilly; J O'Byrne; D J Kelly
Journal:  Biomed Mater Eng       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 1.300

10.  Revision of hemiarthroplasty to total hip arthroplasty using the cement-in-cement technique.

Authors:  E J Mounsey; D H Williams; J R Howell; M J Hubble
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.082

View more
  2 in total

1.  Local infiltration analgesia with bupivacaine and adrenaline does not reduce perioperative blood loss in total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Marcin Ceynowa; Tomasz Sikora; Marek Rocławski; Mariusz Treder; Krzysztof Kolarz; Rafał Pankowski; Tomasz Mazurek
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Long-term survival of hybrid total hip replacement for prior failed proximal femoral nail antirotation: a retrospective study with a median 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Lin Wang; Minji Yu; Yaodong Zhang; Shuxin Wang; Mingdong Zhao; Mingliang Yu; Si Li; Songtao Gao; Min Xiong; Weiguang Yu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-09-16       Impact factor: 2.562

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.