Timing of femoral prosthesis insertion during cemented arthroplasty: cement curing and static mechanical strength in an in vivo model.
BACKGROUND
Modern cementing techniques aim to fix the implanted femoral prosthesis in the medullary cavity to minimize long-term complications such as aseptic loosening. The cure stage of bone cement into which the femoral component is being inserted is an important variable that is decided at the time of surgery. Late-cure cement is more viscous than early-cure cement and requires greater force on the part of the surgeon to insert the femoral prosthesis. We compared 2 cementing techniques, femoral component insertion into early-cure cement and insertion into late-cure cement, using an in vivo model to identify if cement cure stage affects the strength of the bone-cement interface.


METHODS
We performed bilateral hemiarthroplasties using only the femoral component in vivo on paired porcine femora. The femora were harvested and cross-sectioned in preparation for strength testing. We measured bond strength by peak load required to push the femoral prosthesis and surrounding cement mantle free of the cancellous bone.


RESULTS
All radiographs showed good cement interdigitation with no evidence of radiolucent lines at the bone-cement interface. We could not differentiate the early-cure and late-cure groups on postoperative radiographs. The mean failure load for the late-cure arthroplasties was 908 N (standard deviation [SD] 420 N), whereas the mean failure load for the conjugate early-cure arthroplasties was 503 N (SD 342 N).


CONCLUSIONS
Femoral component insertion into late-cure cement required significantly higher loads for push-out than femoral component insertion into early-cure cement.
Memorial University of Newfoundland Faculty of Medicine, 135 Newtown Road, St. John's, NL. stephen.hunt@mun.ca
Stephen
S
Hunt
Craig
C
Stone
Shane
S
Seal
D000818:Animals; D019644:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip / Q000379:methods*; D001843:Bone Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D002484:Cementation / Q000379:methods*; D019245:Compressive Strength; D005260:Female; D005269:Femur / Q000601:surgery*; D006622:Hip Prosthesis; D007593:Joint Instability / Q000517:prevention & control; D008422:Materials Testing; D023421:Models, Animal; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D019919:Prosthesis Implantation / Q000379:methods; D011897:Random Allocation; D018570:Risk Assessment; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013552:Swine; D013997:Time Factors
D001843:Bone Cements
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Jun;75(6):799-801
8314820
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Sep;(119):250-5
954319
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994 Nov;76(6):396-400
7702322
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995 Oct;77(10):1543-50
7593063
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 Aug;69(4):620-4
3611170
J Arthroplasty. 2002 Aug;17(5):579-83
12168173
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976 Nov-Dec;(121):60-6
991520
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Mar;79(2):181-2
9119838
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982 Apr;(164):221-9
7067290
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002 Dec;(405):39-45
12461354
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Dec;65(9):1335-8
6654945
Orthop Clin North Am. 1988 Jul;19(3):591-8
3380536
J Arthroplasty. 2003 Jan;18(1):51-5
12555183
J Arthroplasty. 2007 Jan;22(1):109-16
17197317
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 May;79(3):467-74
9180331
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jul;(232):87-95
3383506
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Dec;(381):26-35
11127664
Injury. 2001 Jul;32(6):461-4
11476810
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Jun;15(4):479-87
10884209
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec;(393):335-44
11764367
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979 Jun;(141):17-27
477100
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 May;79(3):379-84
9180313
Acta Orthop. 2006 Aug;77(4):607-16
16929438
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1978 Aug 11;92(1):19-30
727907
J Arthroplasty. 2005 Jun;20(4):521-8
16124971
J Arthroplasty. 2000 Jun;15(4):488-95
10884210
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 May;75(3):459-63
8496223
J Biomed Mater Res. 1992 Jan;26(1):119-30
1577832
Eng Med. 1988 Jul;17(3):131-3
3181591
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993 Jan;(286):283-8
8425359
Acta Orthop Scand. 2002 Aug;73(4):409-15
12358114