The current trend is toward shorter hip stems. While there is a general agreement on the need for a cement mantle thicker than 2 mm, some surgeons prefer line-to-line cementation, where the mantle has only the thickness provided by the cement-bone interdigitation. The aim of this study was to assess if a relatively short, polished hip stem designed for a standard cementation can also be cemented line-to-line without increasing the risk of long-term loosening. Composite femurs with specific open-cell foam to allow cement-bone interdigitation were used. A validated in-vitro biomechanical cyclic test replicating long-term physiological loading was applied to femurs where the same stem was implanted with the Standard-mantle (optimal stem size) and Line-to-line (same rasp, one-size larger stem). Implant-bone motions were measured during the test. Inducible micromotions never exceeded 10 μm for both implant types (differences statistically not-significant). Permanent migrations ranged 50–300 μm for both implant types (differences statistically not-significant). While in the standard-mantle specimens there was a pronounced trend toward stabilization, line-to-line had less tendency to stabilize. The cement cracks were observed after the test by means of dye penetrants: The line-to-line specimens included the same cracks of the standard-mantle (but in the line-to-line specimens they were longer), and some additional cracks. The micromotions and cement damage were consistent with those observed in-vitro and clinically for stable stems, confirming that none of the specimens became dramatically loose. However, it seems that for this relatively short polished stem, standard-mantle cementation is preferable, as it results in less micromotion and less cement cracking. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:2736–2744, 2018.
Morellato K., Grupp T.M., Bader U., Sungu M., Fink B., Cristofolini L. (2018). Standard and line-to-line cementation of a polished short hip stem: Long-term in vitro implant stability. JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, 36(10), 2736-2744 [10.1002/jor.24036].
Standard and line-to-line cementation of a polished short hip stem: Long-term in vitro implant stability
Morellato K.Primo
;Cristofolini L.
Ultimo
2018
Abstract
The current trend is toward shorter hip stems. While there is a general agreement on the need for a cement mantle thicker than 2 mm, some surgeons prefer line-to-line cementation, where the mantle has only the thickness provided by the cement-bone interdigitation. The aim of this study was to assess if a relatively short, polished hip stem designed for a standard cementation can also be cemented line-to-line without increasing the risk of long-term loosening. Composite femurs with specific open-cell foam to allow cement-bone interdigitation were used. A validated in-vitro biomechanical cyclic test replicating long-term physiological loading was applied to femurs where the same stem was implanted with the Standard-mantle (optimal stem size) and Line-to-line (same rasp, one-size larger stem). Implant-bone motions were measured during the test. Inducible micromotions never exceeded 10 μm for both implant types (differences statistically not-significant). Permanent migrations ranged 50–300 μm for both implant types (differences statistically not-significant). While in the standard-mantle specimens there was a pronounced trend toward stabilization, line-to-line had less tendency to stabilize. The cement cracks were observed after the test by means of dye penetrants: The line-to-line specimens included the same cracks of the standard-mantle (but in the line-to-line specimens they were longer), and some additional cracks. The micromotions and cement damage were consistent with those observed in-vitro and clinically for stable stems, confirming that none of the specimens became dramatically loose. However, it seems that for this relatively short polished stem, standard-mantle cementation is preferable, as it results in less micromotion and less cement cracking. © 2018 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 36:2736–2744, 2018.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.