Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: A laboratory comparison of three techniques
Several cementing techniques are used for the proximal femur. We evaluated 3 femoral cement pressurization techniques (standard, pressurizer in situ, and thumb pressurization) in 12 plastic femurs, with 4 sets of observations for each technique. Intramedullary pressure readings were obtained using p...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica 2004-12, Vol.75 (6), p.708-712 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 712 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 708 |
container_title | Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica |
container_volume | 75 |
creator | KAPOOR, Birender DATIR, Sandeep P DAVIS, Benjamin WYNN-JONES, Charles H MAFFULLI, Nicola |
description | Several cementing techniques are used for the proximal femur.
We evaluated 3 femoral cement pressurization techniques (standard, pressurizer in situ, and thumb pressurization) in 12 plastic femurs, with 4 sets of observations for each technique. Intramedullary pressure readings were obtained using proximal and distal pressure monitoring transducers. The peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above a particular cutoff level (5 KPa and 100 KPa) were compared for the different techniques.
We found significant differences between the 3 cementing techniques in the peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above 100 KPa. The pressurizer in situ technique gave higher peak pressure (p < 0.001), both proximally (398) and distally (597). The standard technique produced a pressure of 100 KPa for a longer duration, both proximally and distally (mean 67 sec and 45 sec, p < 0.001) compared to the other two techniques (less than 5 and 17 sec for the thumb pressurization technique and the pressurizer in situ technique, respectively, both proximally and distally). Although the pressurizer in situ technique produced the highest peak pressure, the standard technique produced an optimum pressure of longer duration.
The standard technique appears to be adequate for achievement of optimum pressurization during femoral cementing without increased risk of embolization. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/00016470410004076 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67278052</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67278052</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p239t-b1c702ea0196f182b2f86e95b8391d987d867bc9023c1054d9e97d299b2e78273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpF0DtPwzAQAGAPIFoKP4AFeYEtYDuOH2xVRQGpEgusRI5zUY2SONjOUH49iShiuoe-u5MOoStK7ihR5J4QQgWXhNMp40SKE7Sce9ncXKDzGD_nkgp5hha0kIIxQZboYwudD6bFFjroEx4CxDgG922S8z12Pd67AZuQ9sEPrYnp8IDXuDXVNJR8OGDru8EEFyfsGzwxAJzA7nv3NUK8QKeNaSNcHuMKvW8f3zbP2e716WWz3mUDy3XKKmolYWAI1aKhilWsUQJ0Ualc01orWSshK6sJyy0lBa81aFkzrSsGUjGZr9Dt794h-PluKjsXLbSt6cGPsRSSSUUKNsHrIxyrDupyCK4z4VD-fWQCN0dgojVtE0xvXfx3IueSc57_AKUGbno</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67278052</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: A laboratory comparison of three techniques</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>KAPOOR, Birender ; DATIR, Sandeep P ; DAVIS, Benjamin ; WYNN-JONES, Charles H ; MAFFULLI, Nicola</creator><creatorcontrib>KAPOOR, Birender ; DATIR, Sandeep P ; DAVIS, Benjamin ; WYNN-JONES, Charles H ; MAFFULLI, Nicola</creatorcontrib><description>Several cementing techniques are used for the proximal femur.
We evaluated 3 femoral cement pressurization techniques (standard, pressurizer in situ, and thumb pressurization) in 12 plastic femurs, with 4 sets of observations for each technique. Intramedullary pressure readings were obtained using proximal and distal pressure monitoring transducers. The peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above a particular cutoff level (5 KPa and 100 KPa) were compared for the different techniques.
We found significant differences between the 3 cementing techniques in the peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above 100 KPa. The pressurizer in situ technique gave higher peak pressure (p < 0.001), both proximally (398) and distally (597). The standard technique produced a pressure of 100 KPa for a longer duration, both proximally and distally (mean 67 sec and 45 sec, p < 0.001) compared to the other two techniques (less than 5 and 17 sec for the thumb pressurization technique and the pressurizer in situ technique, respectively, both proximally and distally). Although the pressurizer in situ technique produced the highest peak pressure, the standard technique produced an optimum pressure of longer duration.
The standard technique appears to be adequate for achievement of optimum pressurization during femoral cementing without increased risk of embolization.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0001-6470</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/00016470410004076</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15762260</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AOSAAK</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Basingstoke: Taylor & Francis</publisher><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods ; Biological and medical sciences ; Bone Cements ; Cementation - methods ; Femur - surgery ; Medical sciences ; Models, Biological ; Orthopedic surgery ; Pressure ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><ispartof>Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica, 2004-12, Vol.75 (6), p.708-712</ispartof><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16347444$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15762260$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>KAPOOR, Birender</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DATIR, Sandeep P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DAVIS, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WYNN-JONES, Charles H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAFFULLI, Nicola</creatorcontrib><title>Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: A laboratory comparison of three techniques</title><title>Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica</title><addtitle>Acta Orthop Scand</addtitle><description>Several cementing techniques are used for the proximal femur.
We evaluated 3 femoral cement pressurization techniques (standard, pressurizer in situ, and thumb pressurization) in 12 plastic femurs, with 4 sets of observations for each technique. Intramedullary pressure readings were obtained using proximal and distal pressure monitoring transducers. The peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above a particular cutoff level (5 KPa and 100 KPa) were compared for the different techniques.
We found significant differences between the 3 cementing techniques in the peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above 100 KPa. The pressurizer in situ technique gave higher peak pressure (p < 0.001), both proximally (398) and distally (597). The standard technique produced a pressure of 100 KPa for a longer duration, both proximally and distally (mean 67 sec and 45 sec, p < 0.001) compared to the other two techniques (less than 5 and 17 sec for the thumb pressurization technique and the pressurizer in situ technique, respectively, both proximally and distally). Although the pressurizer in situ technique produced the highest peak pressure, the standard technique produced an optimum pressure of longer duration.
The standard technique appears to be adequate for achievement of optimum pressurization during femoral cementing without increased risk of embolization.</description><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Bone Cements</subject><subject>Cementation - methods</subject><subject>Femur - surgery</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>Orthopedic surgery</subject><subject>Pressure</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><issn>0001-6470</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpF0DtPwzAQAGAPIFoKP4AFeYEtYDuOH2xVRQGpEgusRI5zUY2SONjOUH49iShiuoe-u5MOoStK7ihR5J4QQgWXhNMp40SKE7Sce9ncXKDzGD_nkgp5hha0kIIxQZboYwudD6bFFjroEx4CxDgG922S8z12Pd67AZuQ9sEPrYnp8IDXuDXVNJR8OGDru8EEFyfsGzwxAJzA7nv3NUK8QKeNaSNcHuMKvW8f3zbP2e716WWz3mUDy3XKKmolYWAI1aKhilWsUQJ0Ualc01orWSshK6sJyy0lBa81aFkzrSsGUjGZr9Dt794h-PluKjsXLbSt6cGPsRSSSUUKNsHrIxyrDupyCK4z4VD-fWQCN0dgojVtE0xvXfx3IueSc57_AKUGbno</recordid><startdate>20041201</startdate><enddate>20041201</enddate><creator>KAPOOR, Birender</creator><creator>DATIR, Sandeep P</creator><creator>DAVIS, Benjamin</creator><creator>WYNN-JONES, Charles H</creator><creator>MAFFULLI, Nicola</creator><general>Taylor & Francis</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20041201</creationdate><title>Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: A laboratory comparison of three techniques</title><author>KAPOOR, Birender ; DATIR, Sandeep P ; DAVIS, Benjamin ; WYNN-JONES, Charles H ; MAFFULLI, Nicola</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p239t-b1c702ea0196f182b2f86e95b8391d987d867bc9023c1054d9e97d299b2e78273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Bone Cements</topic><topic>Cementation - methods</topic><topic>Femur - surgery</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>Orthopedic surgery</topic><topic>Pressure</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>KAPOOR, Birender</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DATIR, Sandeep P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DAVIS, Benjamin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WYNN-JONES, Charles H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MAFFULLI, Nicola</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>KAPOOR, Birender</au><au>DATIR, Sandeep P</au><au>DAVIS, Benjamin</au><au>WYNN-JONES, Charles H</au><au>MAFFULLI, Nicola</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: A laboratory comparison of three techniques</atitle><jtitle>Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Orthop Scand</addtitle><date>2004-12-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>708</spage><epage>712</epage><pages>708-712</pages><issn>0001-6470</issn><coden>AOSAAK</coden><abstract>Several cementing techniques are used for the proximal femur.
We evaluated 3 femoral cement pressurization techniques (standard, pressurizer in situ, and thumb pressurization) in 12 plastic femurs, with 4 sets of observations for each technique. Intramedullary pressure readings were obtained using proximal and distal pressure monitoring transducers. The peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above a particular cutoff level (5 KPa and 100 KPa) were compared for the different techniques.
We found significant differences between the 3 cementing techniques in the peak pressure and the length of time for which the pressure was above 100 KPa. The pressurizer in situ technique gave higher peak pressure (p < 0.001), both proximally (398) and distally (597). The standard technique produced a pressure of 100 KPa for a longer duration, both proximally and distally (mean 67 sec and 45 sec, p < 0.001) compared to the other two techniques (less than 5 and 17 sec for the thumb pressurization technique and the pressurizer in situ technique, respectively, both proximally and distally). Although the pressurizer in situ technique produced the highest peak pressure, the standard technique produced an optimum pressure of longer duration.
The standard technique appears to be adequate for achievement of optimum pressurization during femoral cementing without increased risk of embolization.</abstract><cop>Basingstoke</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis</pub><pmid>15762260</pmid><doi>10.1080/00016470410004076</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0001-6470 |
ispartof | Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica, 2004-12, Vol.75 (6), p.708-712 |
issn | 0001-6470 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67278052 |
source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - methods Biological and medical sciences Bone Cements Cementation - methods Femur - surgery Medical sciences Models, Biological Orthopedic surgery Pressure Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases |
title | Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: A laboratory comparison of three techniques |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T23%3A14%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Femoral%20cement%20pressurization%20in%20hip%20arthroplasty:%20A%20laboratory%20comparison%20of%20three%20techniques&rft.jtitle=Acta%20orthopaedica%20Scandinavica&rft.au=KAPOOR,%20Birender&rft.date=2004-12-01&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=708&rft.epage=712&rft.pages=708-712&rft.issn=0001-6470&rft.coden=AOSAAK&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/00016470410004076&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E67278052%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67278052&rft_id=info:pmid/15762260&rfr_iscdi=true |