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 Video

Updated: Jul 4, 2026

The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
09:51

The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve

Published on: September 7, 2022

[Cementing techniques for hip resurfacing arthroplasty. What do we know?].

R G Bitsch1, T P Schmalzried

  • 1Stiftung Orthopädische Universitätsklinik, Heidelberg. Rudi_Georg.Bitsch@urz.uni-heidelberg.de

Der Orthopade
|June 28, 2008
PubMed
Summary

This study examined how different cementing methods affect hip resurfacing arthroplasty outcomes. Component-filling techniques were found to increase risks of incomplete seating and cement masses, while manual cementing with high-viscosity cement showed better results. Manual cementing reduced interface temperatures and improved cement distribution in outer fixation areas. These findings suggest that cementing methods should be carefully selected to improve implant success and reduce complications.

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

Femoral Cementation in Knee Arthroplasty-A Comparison of Three Cementing Techniques in a Sawbone Model Using the ATTUNE Knee.

The journal of knee surgery·2019
Same author

Techniques for improving the initial strength of the tibial tray-cement interface bond.

The bone & joint journal·2019
Same author

Comparison of the stability of three fixation techniques between porous metal acetabular components and augments.

Bone & joint research·2018
Same author

Defining high activity in arthroplasty patients.

The bone & joint journal·2016
Same author

Femoral rotation in total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of patient individualized jigs with gap balancing in relation to anatomic landmarks.

Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA·2015
Same author

Increased antibiotic release and equivalent biomechanics of a spacer cement without hard radio contrast agents.

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease·2015

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic surgery techniques
  • Biomechanics of joint replacement
  • Surgical cement application in arthroplasty

Background:

Recent retrieval studies have identified cementing issues in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Overpenetration of cement and incomplete seating of the prosthesis are linked to implant failure. Prior research has shown that cementing methods affect cement pressure and interface temperature. Current knowledge lacks clarity on optimal cementing strategies for resurfacing implants. Incomplete seating can lead to polar cement masses and compromised fixation. High interface temperatures may damage surrounding bone tissue. Manual cementing has been proposed as a potential solution in experimental settings. This gap motivated the investigation of cementing techniques to improve implant outcomes.

Purpose Of The Study:

The study aimed to evaluate cementing techniques in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Researchers sought to identify methods that reduce cement-related complications. The focus was on minimizing overpenetration and ensuring complete seating of the prosthesis. The goal was to prevent high interface temperatures that could cause bone necrosis. Manual cementing was compared to other approaches to assess its effectiveness. The study aimed to determine optimal cement distribution patterns. The purpose was to improve fixation and reduce failure risks in resurfacing implants. This work aimed to inform best practices for cement application in hip resurfacing.

Keywords:
hip resurfacing arthroplastycementing techniquessurgical cementjoint replacementorthopedic surgery

Frequently Asked Questions

Manual cementing with high-viscosity cement reduced overpenetration and interface temperatures.

It allows better control of cement distribution and reduces interior area penetration.

This method increases the risk of incomplete seating and polar cement masses.

Component-filling methods may lead to higher temperatures, risking bone necrosis.

It improves implant stability and reduces the risk of cement mass formation.

More Related Videos

The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
07:45

The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report

Published on: August 4, 2022

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 4, 2026

The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
09:51

The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve

Published on: September 7, 2022

The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
07:45

The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report

Published on: August 4, 2022

Main Methods:

The study compared different cementing techniques in hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Cement pressure, interface temperature, and penetration patterns were measured. Component-filling techniques were evaluated for their effects on cement distribution. Manual cementing with high-viscosity cement was tested as an alternative approach. Experiments assessed cement content in outer fixation areas versus interior regions. Temperature changes at the bone-cement interface were monitored. The study used experimental models to simulate implantation conditions. Results were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of each cementing method.

Main Results:

Component-filling cementing increased the risk of incomplete seating and overpenetration. This method led to variable cement distribution and lack of cement at outer fixation areas. High interface temperatures were observed, which may cause bone necrosis. Manual cementing with high-viscosity cement showed better outer fixation cement content. This technique avoided interior area overpenetration and its associated risks. Cement pressure and temperature were more controlled with the manual method. The manual approach reduced the likelihood of polar cement masses forming. These findings suggest manual cementing may improve implant outcomes.

Conclusions:

The authors suggest that cementing technique significantly affects implant outcomes. Component-filling methods may increase risks of overpenetration and incomplete seating. Manual cementing with high-viscosity cement showed advantages in experimental models. This approach may reduce interface temperatures and prevent cement masses. The study supports optimizing cement application to improve fixation and reduce failure. Manual cementing appears to provide better outer fixation cement content. The findings imply that cementing methods should be carefully selected in clinical practice. Further research is needed to confirm these results in clinical settings.

They propose that manual cementing may improve outcomes in hip resurfacing.