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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Takkan Morishima, Godwin GH Choy, Ross W Crawford, Lance J Wilson
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