Premium
Modified cemented stem fixation in hip arthroplasty with computer based analysis – Experimental results
Author(s) -
Barden B.,
Weßkamp B.,
Löer F.,
Michiels I.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
materialwissenschaft und werkstofftechnik
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.285
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1521-4052
pISSN - 0933-5137
DOI - 10.1002/mawe.200300716
Subject(s) - fixation (population genetics) , intramedullary rod , cadaver , centralizer and normalizer , femur , implant , cement , medicine , dentistry , surgery , materials science , composite material , mathematics , population , environmental health , pure mathematics
27 cemented stems were implanted in fresh‐frozen human cadaver femora with third generation antegrade cementing technique and with prechilled vacuum‐mixed and pre‐pressurized Palacos R bone cement. 3 groups with different implantation techniques were compared according to the achieved cement mantle thickness distribution. Group 1 (modified stem fixation): 7 canulated stems inserted over guidetubes that were fixed in distal synthetic plugs (3 Willert CF‐30 and 4 flanged Charnley stems). The guidetubes served simultaneously for stem centralization and evacuation of the intramedullary cavity. Group 2: 12 stems with distal centralizers with fins (4 flanged Charnley, 8 anatomic cemented AC), and Group 3: 8 stems without centralizer (4 Willert CF‐30 and 4 flanged Charnley). For analysis, each femur was cut into mean 25 cross‐sections (range, 22 ‐ 31). Contact radiographs were taken and digitized with a sampling distance of 0.12mm (204.8 dpi). Using a custom‐made computer program (FemStat 1.001), the cement mantle thickness was determined at mean 650 implant surface points per cross section. Results: The percentage of critical cement mantle thickness was lower for the canulated stems with guidetube. Here 14.1 % of the measurements were smaller than 2mm. For the stems with distal centralizer and without centralizer this was 28.3 % and 28.2 % (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002, U‐test). Cement mantles smaller than 1mm were also reduced for group 1 (2.8 % compared with 4.7 % and 7.5 %) but this was not significant (p = 0.384 and p = 0.094). The stems without centralizers had only slightly inferior cement mantles if compared to stems with distal centralizers with fins (for < 2mm p = 0.571, for < 1mm p = 0.305). Comparing different cementing techniques for one constant type of prosthesis (Charnley) the canulated stems with guide tubes provided a significantly better cement mantle thickness than the stems with distal centralizers (for < 2mm 10.3 % compared with 26.6 %, p = 0.029; for < 1mm 1.5 % compared with 3.4 %, p = 0.343). Distal centralizers failed, as the intramedullary cavity is elliptic in cross section and the gaps between the wings caused malposition. For all stems in group 3 improvement of the cement mantle thickness was predominantly achieved in the distal and middle third of the femur. Conclusion: The implantation technique with canulated stems inserted over a guidetube allows superior stem positioning leading to a more favourable cement mantle.