Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 25, 2026
Proximal Cadaveric Femur Preparation for Fracture Strength Testing and Quantitative CT-based Finite Element Analysis
Published on: March 11, 2017
Comparison of two pressurisers for cementation of the proximal femur
Takkan Morishima1, Godwin G H Choy, Ross W Crawford
1Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.
Purpose:
To compare pressures generated by 2 different cement pressurisers at various locations in the proximal femur.
Methods:
Two groups of 5 synthetic femurs were used, and 6 pressure sensors were placed in the femur at 20-mm intervals proximally to distally. Cement was filled into the femoral canal retrogradely using a cement gun with either the half-moon pressuriser or the femoral canal pressuriser. Maximum pressures and pressure time integrals (cumulative pressure over time) of the 2 pressurisers were compared.
Results:
At all sensors, the half-moon pressuriser produced higher maximum pressures and pressure time integrals than the femoral canal pressuriser, but the difference was significant only at sensor 1 (proximal femur). This may result in reduced cement interdigitation in the proximal femur.
Conclusion:
The half-moon pressuriser produced higher maximum cementation pressures and pressure time integrals than the femoral canal pressuriser in the proximal femur region, which is critical for rotational stability of the implant and prevention of implant fracture.
