2008 Otto Aufranc Award: component design and technique affect cement penetration in hip resurfacing.
biomechanical · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 18923883.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s11999-008-0541-8 and PMC identifier 2600983.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
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.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
- Bone Cements
- Hip Prosthesis
- Osteonecrosis
- Prosthesis Design
Anatomy
- femur
- hip