Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: a laboratory comparison of three techniques.

Birender Kapoor, Sandeep P Datir, Benjamin Davis, Charles H Wynn-Jones, Nicola Maffulli
{"title":"Femoral cement pressurization in hip arthroplasty: a laboratory comparison of three techniques.","authors":"Birender Kapoor,&nbsp;Sandeep P Datir,&nbsp;Benjamin Davis,&nbsp;Charles H Wynn-Jones,&nbsp;Nicola Maffulli","doi":"10.1080/00016470410004076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Several cementing techniques are used for the proximal femur.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>The standard technique appears to be adequate for achievement of optimum pressurization during femoral cementing without increased risk of embolization.</p>","PeriodicalId":75403,"journal":{"name":"Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica","volume":"75 6","pages":"708-12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/00016470410004076","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00016470410004076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

Background: Several cementing techniques are used for the proximal femur.

Material and methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Interpretation: The standard technique appears to be adequate for achievement of optimum pressurization during femoral cementing without increased risk of embolization.

髋关节置换术中股骨水泥加压:三种技术的实验室比较。
背景:几种骨水泥技术用于股骨近端。材料和方法:我们在12根塑料股骨中评估了3种股骨水泥加压技术(标准、原位加压器和拇指加压),每种技术有4组观察结果。髓内压力读数通过近端和远端压力监测传感器获得。比较了不同技术的峰值压力和压力高于特定截止水平(5kpa和100kpa)的时间长度。结果:我们发现3种固井技术在峰值压力和压力大于100kpa的时间长度方面存在显著差异。加压器原位技术在近端(398)和远端(597)均获得更高的峰值压力(p < 0.001)。与其他两种技术相比,标准技术在近端和远端产生100 KPa压力的持续时间更长(平均67秒和45秒,p < 0.001)(拇指加压技术和加压器原位技术分别小于5秒和17秒,近端和远端)。虽然稳压器原位技术产生的峰值压力最高,但标准技术产生的最佳压力持续时间更长。解释:标准技术似乎足以在不增加栓塞风险的情况下实现最佳加压。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信