English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Either excessive or insufficient cement penetration within the femoral head after hip resurfacing influences the risk of femoral failures. However, the factors controlling cement penetration are not yet fully understood. We determined the effect of femoral component design and cementation technique on cement penetration. Six retrieved femoral heads were resurfaced for each implant (BHR, ASR, Conserve Plus, DuROM, ReCAP) using the manufacturers' recommendations for implantation. In addition, the BHR was implanted using the Conserve Plus high-viscosity cementation technique, "BHR/hvt," and vice versa for the Conserve, "Conserve/lvt." The average cement penetration was highest with BHR (65.62% +/- 15.16%) compared with ASR (12.25% +/- 5.12%), Conserve Plus(R) (19.43% +/- 5.28%), DuROM (17.73% +/- 3.96%), and ReCAP (26.09% +/- 5.20%). Cement penetration in BHR/hvt remained higher than all other implants equaling 36.7% +/- 6.6%. Greater femoral component design clearance correlated with cement mantle thickness. Femoral component design in hip resurfacing plays a major role in cement penetration.

2008 Otto Aufranc Award: Component Design and Technique Affect Cement Penetration in Hip Resurfacing