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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2021-02, Vol.16 (2), p.e0246740-e0246740 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0246740 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | e0246740 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Ceynowa, Marcin Zerdzicki, Krzysztof Klosowski, Pawel Zrodowski, Maciej Pankowski, Rafal Roclawski, Marek Mazurek, Tomasz |
| 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; Rm = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; Rm = 284 N; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0246740 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2488534917</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A651503076</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_626d28474ca24817af4faf2220bdde97</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A651503076</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9689fe19becbc9ac2c37e36f7e2d316fb8de2a8c01fda1a7dff5719bf369ba043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUgIso7rr6D0QLgujDjLm0SfsiDIuXgYUFXX0Np2kyzdo2Y5KOzrN_3MxOZ5jKPkihCcl3vvSc5iTJc4zmmHL87tYOrod2vra9miOSMZ6hB8k5LimZMYLow5P5WfLE-1uEclow9jg5ozTnmOT4PPlz06hUqk71YVZFUxpfdWp8-kvBD-XS0EB_2N8PI3FcNf1hw6mN8cb2KbjQOLtuwYftPF2k0nZrcBDMJvqN7ZSMViOhTX0Y6u3T5JGG1qtn43iRfPv44eby8-zq-tPycnE1k6wkYVayotQKl5WSlSxBEkm5okxzRWqKma6KWhEoJMK6Bgy81jpmWVaasrIClNGL5OXeu26tF2P9vCBZUeQ0KzGPxHJP1BZuxdqZDtxWWDDibsG6lYi5GdkqwQirSZHxTEIUYA4606AJIaiqa1XuXO_H04aqU7WMFXLQTqTTnd40YmU3ghecs7yMgjejwNmfg_JBdMZL1bbQKzvcfXdJOMKMRfTVP-j92Y3UCmICptc2nit3UrFgOc4RRXznmt9DxadWnZHximgT1ycBbycBkQnqd1jB4L1Yfv3y_-z19yn7-oRtFLSh8bYdQrxifgpme1A6671T-lhkjMSuVw7VELteEWOvxLAXpz_oGHRoDvoXI_4RZQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2488534917</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Ceynowa, Marcin ; Zerdzicki, Krzysztof ; Klosowski, Pawel ; Zrodowski, Maciej ; Pankowski, Rafal ; Roclawski, Marek ; Mazurek, Tomasz</creator><contributor>Garcia Aznar, Jose Manuel</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ceynowa, Marcin ; Zerdzicki, Krzysztof ; Klosowski, Pawel ; Zrodowski, Maciej ; Pankowski, Rafal ; Roclawski, Marek ; Mazurek, Tomasz ; Garcia Aznar, Jose Manuel</creatorcontrib><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; Rm = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; Rm = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; Rm = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; Rm = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; Rm = 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246740</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33571251</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Arthritis ; Arthroplasty (hip) ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Biomechanics ; Biomedical materials ; Bone cements ; Bone implants ; Bone marrow ; Bone surgery ; Cement ; Comparative analysis ; Contamination ; Cyclic loads ; Drafting software ; Drilling ; Editing ; Environmental engineering ; Femoral components ; Femur ; Fractures ; Joint surgery ; Liquid phases ; Materials ; Mechanical properties ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Metastases ; Methodology ; Neoplasia ; Neoplasms ; Orthopedic implants ; Orthopedics ; Physical Sciences ; Polymerization ; Revisions ; Rheumatoid arthritis ; Shear strength ; Surgery ; Technology ; Visualization</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2021-02, Vol.16 (2), p.e0246740-e0246740</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2021 Ceynowa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2021 Ceynowa et al 2021 Ceynowa et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9689fe19becbc9ac2c37e36f7e2d316fb8de2a8c01fda1a7dff5719bf369ba043</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9689fe19becbc9ac2c37e36f7e2d316fb8de2a8c01fda1a7dff5719bf369ba043</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0850-6041</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877659/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7877659/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33571251$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Garcia Aznar, Jose Manuel</contributor><creatorcontrib>Ceynowa, Marcin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerdzicki, Krzysztof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klosowski, Pawel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zrodowski, Maciej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pankowski, Rafal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roclawski, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazurek, Tomasz</creatorcontrib><title>The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><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; Rm = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; Rm = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; Rm = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; Rm = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; Rm = 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.</description><subject>Arthritis</subject><subject>Arthroplasty (hip)</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomechanics</subject><subject>Biomedical materials</subject><subject>Bone cements</subject><subject>Bone implants</subject><subject>Bone marrow</subject><subject>Bone surgery</subject><subject>Cement</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>Cyclic loads</subject><subject>Drafting software</subject><subject>Drilling</subject><subject>Editing</subject><subject>Environmental engineering</subject><subject>Femoral components</subject><subject>Femur</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Joint surgery</subject><subject>Liquid phases</subject><subject>Materials</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Methodology</subject><subject>Neoplasia</subject><subject>Neoplasms</subject><subject>Orthopedic implants</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Polymerization</subject><subject>Revisions</subject><subject>Rheumatoid arthritis</subject><subject>Shear strength</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Visualization</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk1uL1DAUgIso7rr6D0QLgujDjLm0SfsiDIuXgYUFXX0Np2kyzdo2Y5KOzrN_3MxOZ5jKPkihCcl3vvSc5iTJc4zmmHL87tYOrod2vra9miOSMZ6hB8k5LimZMYLow5P5WfLE-1uEclow9jg5ozTnmOT4PPlz06hUqk71YVZFUxpfdWp8-kvBD-XS0EB_2N8PI3FcNf1hw6mN8cb2KbjQOLtuwYftPF2k0nZrcBDMJvqN7ZSMViOhTX0Y6u3T5JGG1qtn43iRfPv44eby8-zq-tPycnE1k6wkYVayotQKl5WSlSxBEkm5okxzRWqKma6KWhEoJMK6Bgy81jpmWVaasrIClNGL5OXeu26tF2P9vCBZUeQ0KzGPxHJP1BZuxdqZDtxWWDDibsG6lYi5GdkqwQirSZHxTEIUYA4606AJIaiqa1XuXO_H04aqU7WMFXLQTqTTnd40YmU3ghecs7yMgjejwNmfg_JBdMZL1bbQKzvcfXdJOMKMRfTVP-j92Y3UCmICptc2nit3UrFgOc4RRXznmt9DxadWnZHximgT1ycBbycBkQnqd1jB4L1Yfv3y_-z19yn7-oRtFLSh8bYdQrxifgpme1A6671T-lhkjMSuVw7VELteEWOvxLAXpz_oGHRoDvoXI_4RZQ</recordid><startdate>20210211</startdate><enddate>20210211</enddate><creator>Ceynowa, Marcin</creator><creator>Zerdzicki, Krzysztof</creator><creator>Klosowski, Pawel</creator><creator>Zrodowski, Maciej</creator><creator>Pankowski, Rafal</creator><creator>Roclawski, Marek</creator><creator>Mazurek, Tomasz</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0850-6041</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210211</creationdate><title>The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study</title><author>Ceynowa, Marcin ; Zerdzicki, Krzysztof ; Klosowski, Pawel ; Zrodowski, Maciej ; Pankowski, Rafal ; Roclawski, Marek ; Mazurek, Tomasz</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-9689fe19becbc9ac2c37e36f7e2d316fb8de2a8c01fda1a7dff5719bf369ba043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Arthritis</topic><topic>Arthroplasty (hip)</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomechanics</topic><topic>Biomedical materials</topic><topic>Bone cements</topic><topic>Bone implants</topic><topic>Bone marrow</topic><topic>Bone surgery</topic><topic>Cement</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>Cyclic loads</topic><topic>Drafting software</topic><topic>Drilling</topic><topic>Editing</topic><topic>Environmental engineering</topic><topic>Femoral components</topic><topic>Femur</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Joint surgery</topic><topic>Liquid phases</topic><topic>Materials</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Methodology</topic><topic>Neoplasia</topic><topic>Neoplasms</topic><topic>Orthopedic implants</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Polymerization</topic><topic>Revisions</topic><topic>Rheumatoid arthritis</topic><topic>Shear strength</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Visualization</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ceynowa, Marcin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerdzicki, Krzysztof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klosowski, Pawel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zrodowski, Maciej</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pankowski, Rafal</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roclawski, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazurek, Tomasz</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ceynowa, Marcin</au><au>Zerdzicki, Krzysztof</au><au>Klosowski, Pawel</au><au>Zrodowski, Maciej</au><au>Pankowski, Rafal</au><au>Roclawski, Marek</au><au>Mazurek, Tomasz</au><au>Garcia Aznar, Jose Manuel</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2021-02-11</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e0246740</spage><epage>e0246740</epage><pages>e0246740-e0246740</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>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; Rm = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; Rm = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; Rm = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; Rm = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; Rm = 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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33571251</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0246740</doi><tpages>e0246740</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0850-6041</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2021-02, Vol.16 (2), p.e0246740-e0246740 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2488534917 |
| source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Arthritis Arthroplasty (hip) Biology and Life Sciences Biomechanics Biomedical materials Bone cements Bone implants Bone marrow Bone surgery Cement Comparative analysis Contamination Cyclic loads Drafting software Drilling Editing Environmental engineering Femoral components Femur Fractures Joint surgery Liquid phases Materials Mechanical properties Medicine and Health Sciences Metastases Methodology Neoplasia Neoplasms Orthopedic implants Orthopedics Physical Sciences Polymerization Revisions Rheumatoid arthritis Shear strength Surgery Technology Visualization |
| title | The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T03%3A24%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20cement-bone%20bond%20is%20weaker%20than%20cement-cement%20bond%20in%20cement-in-cement%20revision%20arthroplasty.%20A%20comparative%20biomechanical%20study&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Ceynowa,%20Marcin&rft.date=2021-02-11&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e0246740&rft.epage=e0246740&rft.pages=e0246740-e0246740&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0246740&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA651503076%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2488534917&rft_id=info:pmid/33571251&rft_galeid=A651503076&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_626d28474ca24817af4faf2220bdde97&rfr_iscdi=true |