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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ceynowa, Marcin, Zerdzicki, Krzysztof, Klosowski, Pawel, Zrodowski, Maciej, Pankowski, Rafal, Roclawski, Marek, Mazurek, Tomasz
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