Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

The effect of different cement insertion techniques on the bone-cement interface.

J G Horne1, W Bruce, P A Devane

  • 1Department of Surgery, Wellington School of Medicine, Wellington South, New Zealand. horne@wnmeds.ac.nz

The Journal of Arthroplasty
|August 9, 2002
PubMed
Summary

This study compared two cement insertion techniques in a canine model of hip replacement surgery. One method used manual cement insertion, while the other used a pressurized approach. Histological analysis showed that the pressurized method resulted in better cement distribution and interface quality. The findings suggest that pressurized cementing may improve implant longevity by reducing interface voids and enhancing cement penetration. The study does not claim that pressurization is essential for success but proposes that it may offer advantages over manual insertion.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

'It's especially good just to know that you're not the only one': a qualitative study exploring experiences with online peer support programmes for the Fragile X community.

Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR·2024
Same author

Measuring the migration of the components and polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty: beads and specialised radiographs are not necessary.

The bone & joint journal·2017
Same author

Noise from total hip replacements: a case-controlled study.

Bone & joint research·2014
Same author

Mobile- versus fixed-bearing modern total knee replacements- which is the more patella-friendly design?: The 11-year New Zealand Joint Registry study.

Bone & joint research·2013
Same author

[Use of Eductyl(®) suppository for rectal preparation before prostate biopsy: an observational survey].

Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie·2012
Same author

Contagious Pneumonia.

British medical journal·2010

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic surgery techniques
  • Biomedical materials application
  • Surgical outcomes research

Background:

Prior research has established that cemented total hip arthroplasty has undergone several generations of technique evolution. It was already known that these changes may have contributed to improved femoral component longevity. The bone-cement interface in first-generation methods has been studied, but recent techniques remain less understood. That uncertainty drove the need to examine newer cementing approaches. No prior work had resolved how modern cementing affects the interface. This gap motivated the use of a canine model to compare techniques. The study aimed to clarify how interface quality differs between methods. This work builds on existing knowledge of cemented hip implants.

Purpose Of The Study:

The aim of this study was to compare the bone-cement interface quality between two cementing techniques in a canine model. The specific problem addressed is the lack of data on recent cementing methods. The motivation stems from the need to improve implant longevity. The canine model was selected to simulate human hip replacement. The study focused on interface characteristics after implantation. The goal was to identify which method produces better interface quality. This research fills a gap in understanding modern cementing outcomes. The findings may inform clinical cementing practices.

Keywords:
hip arthroplasty techniquescement distribution in implantsbone interface qualitysurgical cement methods

Frequently Asked Questions

The pressurized method showed better cement penetration and interface quality compared to manual insertion.

Histological analysis was used to assess cement distribution and interface quality after implantation.

To determine if pressurization improves cement distribution and reduces interface voids compared to manual insertion.

It allowed researchers to compare cement penetration and bone integration between the two methods.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Methods:

The study used a canine total hip arthroplasty model to evaluate two cementing techniques. One method involved manual cement insertion, while the other used a pressurized technique. Both groups received implants placed in the femur. The bone-cement interface was examined using histological analysis. The animals were monitored for interface quality post-implantation. No prior studies had combined these two methods in a single model. The pressurized method was designed to improve cement distribution. Histological evaluation focused on cement penetration and bone integration.

Main Results:

The pressurized cementing method showed improved cement penetration into cancellous bone. Manual insertion resulted in less uniform cement distribution. Histological analysis revealed better interface quality with the pressurized technique. The cement mantle thickness was more consistent in the pressurized group. No significant differences in cement fracture were observed between groups. The pressurized method reduced voids at the interface compared to manual insertion. These findings suggest that pressurization improves interface quality. The results highlight the importance of cementing technique in hip arthroplasty.

Conclusions:

The authors suggest that pressurized cementing improves the bone-cement interface in hip arthroplasty. The study implies that cement distribution is more uniform with pressurization. The findings may indicate that pressurized techniques reduce interface voids. The authors propose that these results could inform surgical practice. The study does not claim that pressurization is essential for success. The results suggest that interface quality may depend on cementing method. The authors do not assert that all hip replacements require pressurization. The study may suggest that technique choice affects implant longevity.

Pressurized insertion resulted in more consistent cement mantle thickness and fewer voids.

The authors propose that pressurization may enhance implant longevity by improving interface quality.