Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal Femur
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 ca...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SAGE Publishing
2014-08-01
|
Series: | Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901402200209 |
id |
doaj-c584926ebfbf44fb887fe8db550a9b99 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-c584926ebfbf44fb887fe8db550a9b992020-11-25T01:20:38ZengSAGE PublishingJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery2309-49902014-08-012210.1177/230949901402200209Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal FemurTakkan MorishimaGodwin GH ChoyRoss W CrawfordLance J WilsonPurpose. 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.https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901402200209 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Takkan Morishima Godwin GH Choy Ross W Crawford Lance J Wilson |
spellingShingle |
Takkan Morishima Godwin GH Choy Ross W Crawford Lance J Wilson Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal Femur Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery |
author_facet |
Takkan Morishima Godwin GH Choy Ross W Crawford Lance J Wilson |
author_sort |
Takkan Morishima |
title |
Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal Femur |
title_short |
Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal Femur |
title_full |
Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal Femur |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal Femur |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of Two Pressurisers for Cementation of the Proximal Femur |
title_sort |
comparison of two pressurisers for cementation of the proximal femur |
publisher |
SAGE Publishing |
series |
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery |
issn |
2309-4990 |
publishDate |
2014-08-01 |
description |
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. |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1177/230949901402200209 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT takkanmorishima comparisonoftwopressurisersforcementationoftheproximalfemur AT godwinghchoy comparisonoftwopressurisersforcementationoftheproximalfemur AT rosswcrawford comparisonoftwopressurisersforcementationoftheproximalfemur AT lancejwilson comparisonoftwopressurisersforcementationoftheproximalfemur |
_version_ |
1725132857342427136 |