The effect of application time of two types of bone cement on the cement–bone interface strength

被引：2
作者：
Dahabreh Z. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Phillips H.K. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Stewart T. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Stone M. [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构：
[1] Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Leeds General Infirmary, Great George Street, Leeds
[2] Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust, Acre Street, Lindley, Huddersfield
[3] The University of Leeds, Leeds
[4] Chapel Allerton Hospital, Chapeltown Road, Leeds
来源：
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | 2015年 / 25卷 / 4期
关键词：
Aseptic loosening; Bone cement; Polymethylmethacrylate; Total knee arthroplasty; Viscosity;
D O I：
10.1007/s00590-014-1522-0
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the application time of bone cement would have an effect on the cement–bone interface strength in two types of commercially available bone cements. CMW1 Radiopaque® (CMW1) and SmartSetHV® (SmartSet) were applied to bovine cancellous bone specimens at 2 and at 4 min. Specimens were loaded to failure and the shear strength of the cement–bone interface was calculated. The mean shear strength (±standard deviation) of the cement–bone interface was 2.79 ± 1.29 MPa for CMW1 applied at 2 min; 1.35 ± 0.89 MPa for CMW1 applied at 4 min; 2.93 ± 1.21 MPa for SmartSet applied at 2 min and 3.00 ± 1.11 MPa for SmartSet applied at 4 min. Compared to all other groups, the cement–bone interface strength was significantly lower when CMW1 was applied to the bone specimens at 4 min (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the cement–bone interface strength when SmartSet was applied to bone at 2 and at 4 min. Under these testing conditions, the cement–bone interface strength was not affected by the time of application of SmartSet to bone. However, it was significantly lower when CMW1 was applied to bone at 4 min. © 2014, Springer-Verlag France.
引用
收藏
页码：775 / 781
页数：6
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
Gioe T.J., Killeen K.K., Grimm K., Mehle S., Scheltema K., Why are total knee replacements revised?: analysis of early revision in a community knee implant registry, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 428, pp. 100-106, (2004)
[2]  
Lacey J.A., A statistical review of 100 consecutive “U.C.I.” low friction knee arthroplasties with analysis of results, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 132, pp. 163-169, (1978)
[3]  
Huiskes R., Nunamaker D., Local stresses and bone adaption around orthopedic implants, Calcif Tissue Int, 36, pp. S110-S117, (1984)
[4]  
Krause W.R., Krug W., Miller J., Strength of the cement–bone interface, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 163, pp. 290-299, (1982)
[5]  
Bannister G.C., Miles A.W., The influence of cementing technique and blood on the strength of the bone–cement interface, Eng Med, 17, 3, pp. 131-133, (1988)
[6]  
Mann K.A., Werner F.W., Ayers D.C., Mechanical strength of the cement–bone interface is greater in shear than in tension, J Biomech, 32, 11, pp. 1251-1254, (1999)
[7]  
MacDonald W., Swarts E., Beaver R., Penetration and shear strength of cement–bone interfaces in vivo, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 286, pp. 283-288, (1993)
[8]  
Mann K.A., Mocarski R., Damron L.A., Allen M.J., Ayers D.C., Mixed-mode failure response of the cement–bone interface, J Orthop Res, 19, 6, pp. 1153-1161, (2001)
[9]  
Stone J.J., Rand J.A., Chiu E.K., Grabowski J.J., An K.N., Cement viscosity affects the bone–cement interface in total hip arthroplasty, J Orthop Res, 14, 5, pp. 834-837, (1996)
[10]  
Demian H.W., McDermott K., Regulatory perspective on characterization and testing of orthopedic bone cements, Biomaterials, 19, 17, pp. 1607-1618, (1998)
123