What is the Optimum Pattern of Pressurisation to Gain Maximum Penetration of Methylmethacrylate Cement into the Reamed Acetabulum?
arthroplasty
cement
hips
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jan 2020
14 Jan 2020
Historique:
entrez:
22
2
2020
pubmed:
23
2
2020
medline:
23
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction The cemented polyethylene cup has remained the standard acetabular implant for 50 years although there has been little research into cementing techniques. In the past, cement was previously inserted by sequential manual pressurisation (thumbing) but this technique was prone to contamination of the cement leading to weakening of fixation. In recent times, third-generation techniques using sealed pressurisation with rim preparation have been espoused with similar results. We were interested in establishing whether repeated cycles of compression of cement allowing adequate time for relaxation increases its depth of penetration, and the optimum period of relaxation required to achieve this goal. Method A single mix of polymethylmethacrylate cement at dough stage was inserted into a model of the reamed acetabulum. Cyclical pressurisation of the cement with 50 N followed nine different patterns to simulate thumbing, constant pressure, and the application of a sealed and unsealed acetabular cup implant. Results A constant load was as effective as all variations of repeated cycles of load and relaxation except for 50 N pressure applied for four seconds with four second intervals. A four second interval of relaxation achieved significantly more penetration than five or three seconds. Following two minutes of constant pressure, the application of a sealed or unsealed thrust of the plunger had no effect on cement penetration. Conclusion This study suggests that optimal polymethylmethacrylate cement penetration into the acetabulum occurs with cycled application of load for four seconds followed by four seconds of relaxation. The subsequent pressurisation with either a flanged or unflanged acetabular implant does not appear to improve cement penetration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32082954
doi: 10.7759/cureus.6654
pmc: PMC7017929
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e6654Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020, Rocos et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section.
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Sep;(119):250-5
pubmed: 954319
J Orthop Surg Res. 2012 Feb 03;7:5
pubmed: 22305294
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Mar;467(3):792-8
pubmed: 18998193
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002 Aug;84(6):839-45
pubmed: 12211674
Acta Orthop. 2007 Jun;78(3):333-9
pubmed: 17611845
Acta Orthop. 2010 Oct;81(5):556-62
pubmed: 20860522
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1978 Aug 11;92(1):19-30
pubmed: 727907
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Nov-Dec;(121):99-102
pubmed: 991525
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1966 May;48(2):245-59
pubmed: 5937593
J Arthroplasty. 2004 Oct;19(7):911-8
pubmed: 15483809
Acta Orthop. 2009 Aug;80(4):402-12
pubmed: 19857178
J Orthop Res. 1984;1(4):412-20
pubmed: 6491790
Acta Orthop Scand. 1997 Feb;68(1):55-8
pubmed: 9057569
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Jan 16;95(2):168-74
pubmed: 23324965
Acta Orthop Scand. 2004 Jun;75(3):269-75
pubmed: 15260418