Cargando…
The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study
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 cemen...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33571251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246740 |
_version_ | 1783650215210778624 |
---|---|
author | Ceynowa, Marcin Zerdzicki, Krzysztof Klosowski, Pawel Zrodowski, Maciej Pankowski, Rafal Roclawski, Marek Mazurek, Tomasz |
author_facet | Ceynowa, Marcin Zerdzicki, Krzysztof Klosowski, Pawel Zrodowski, Maciej Pankowski, Rafal Roclawski, Marek Mazurek, Tomasz |
author_sort | Ceynowa, Marcin |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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; R(m) = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; R(m) = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; R(m) = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; R(m) = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; R(m) = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; R(m) = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; R(m) = 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7877659 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78776592021-02-19 The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study Ceynowa, Marcin Zerdzicki, Krzysztof Klosowski, Pawel Zrodowski, Maciej Pankowski, Rafal Roclawski, Marek Mazurek, Tomasz PLoS One Research Article 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; R(m) = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; R(m) = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; R(m) = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; R(m) = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; R(m) = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; R(m) = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; R(m) = 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. Public Library of Science 2021-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7877659/ /pubmed/33571251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246740 Text en © 2021 Ceynowa et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Ceynowa, Marcin Zerdzicki, Krzysztof Klosowski, Pawel Zrodowski, Maciej Pankowski, Rafal Roclawski, Marek Mazurek, Tomasz The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study |
title | The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study |
title_full | The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study |
title_fullStr | The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study |
title_full_unstemmed | The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study |
title_short | The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study |
title_sort | cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. a comparative biomechanical study |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877659/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33571251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246740 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ceynowamarcin thecementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT zerdzickikrzysztof thecementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT klosowskipawel thecementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT zrodowskimaciej thecementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT pankowskirafal thecementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT roclawskimarek thecementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT mazurektomasz thecementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT ceynowamarcin cementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT zerdzickikrzysztof cementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT klosowskipawel cementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT zrodowskimaciej cementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT pankowskirafal cementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT roclawskimarek cementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy AT mazurektomasz cementbonebondisweakerthancementcementbondincementincementrevisionarthroplastyacomparativebiomechanicalstudy |