带边与不带边髋臼杯骨水泥加压的比较。
Comparison of cement pressurisation in flanged and unflanged acetabular cups.
机构信息
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
出版信息
J Orthop Surg Res. 2012 Feb 3;7:5. doi: 10.1186/1749-799X-7-5.
BACKGROUND
This biomechanical study examined difference in cement pressures generated by flanged and unflanged acetabular cups in hip arthroplasty.
METHOD
Using a model acetabulum, cement was inserted and pressurised followed by cup insertion and pressurisation. Pressures were recorded using transducers in the acetabulum. We compared Charnley Ogee (flanged), Exeter contemporary (flanged) and Exeter low profile (unflanged) cups using Simplex and CMW1 cements in turn.
RESULTS
Using Simplex, Charnley Ogee cup generated highest initial peak pressure and overall mean pressure. Exeter unflanged cup generated higher initial and mean pressures compared to Exeter flanged cup. With CMW, there was no significant difference between the pressures generated by the cups.
CONCLUSIONS
Our experiment suggests that flanged cups do not consistently generate significantly higher cement pressures compared to unflanged cups.
背景
本生物力学研究比较了髋关节置换术中带边和不带边髋臼杯产生的水泥压力差异。
方法
使用模型髋臼，在插入和加压水泥后，再插入和加压髋臼杯。使用髋臼中的换能器记录压力。我们依次使用 Simplex 和 CMW1 水泥比较了 Charnley Ogee（带边）、Exeter contemporary（带边）和 Exeter low profile（不带边）髋臼杯。
结果
使用 Simplex 时，Charnley Ogee 杯产生的初始峰值压力和总体平均压力最高。与 Exeter 带边杯相比，Exeter 无边杯产生的初始和平均压力更高。使用 CMW 时，各杯产生的压力无显著差异。
结论
我们的实验表明，带边杯并不总是比无边杯产生更高的水泥压力。
Zotero 插件