Suppr超能文献

在水泥-水泥翻修关节成形术中,水泥-骨结合比水泥-水泥结合弱。一项比较生物力学研究。

The cement-bone bond is weaker than cement-cement bond in cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty. A comparative biomechanical study.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gdansk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 11;16(2):e0246740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246740. eCollection 2021.

Abstract

This study compares the strength of the native bone-cement bond and the old-new cement bond under cyclic loading, using third generation cementing technique, rasping and contamination of the surface of the old cement with biological tissue. The possible advantages of additional drilling of the cement surface is also taken into account. Femoral heads from 21 patients who underwent a total hip arthroplasty performed for hip arthritis were used to prepare bone-cement samples. The following groups of samples were prepared. A bone-cement sample and a composite sample of a 6 weeks old cement part attached to new cement were tested 24 hours after preparation to avoid bone decay. Additionally, a uniform cement sample was prepared as control (6 weeks polymerization time) and 2 groups of cement-cement samples with and without anchoring drill hole on its surface, where the old cement polymerized for 6 weeks before preparing composite samples and then another 6 weeks after preparation. The uniaxial cyclic tension-compression tests were carried out using the Zwick-Roell Z020 testing machine. The uniform cement sample had the highest ultimate force of all specimens (n = 15; Rm = 3149 N). The composite cement sample (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) had higher ultimate force as the bone-cement sample (n = 31; Rm = 284 N; p <0.001). There were no significant differences between composite samples with 24 hours (n = 15; Rm = 902 N) and 6 weeks polymerization periods (n = 22; Rm = 890 N; p = 0.93). The composite cement samples with drill hole (n = 16; Rm = 607 N) were weaker than those without it (n = 22; Rm = 890 N; p < 0.001). This study shows that the bond between the old and new cement was stronger than the bond between cement and bone. This suggests that it is better to leave the cement that is not loosened from the bone and perform cement in cement revision, than compromising bone stock by removal of the old cement with the resulting weaker cement-bone interface. The results support performing cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty The drill holes in the old cement mantle decrease cement binding strength and are not recommended in this type of surgery.

摘要

本研究比较了第三代骨水泥粘结技术、骨水泥表面打磨和生物组织污染条件下,循环载荷下原生骨-水泥结合和新旧水泥结合的强度。同时还考虑了对水泥表面进行额外钻孔的可能优势。从 21 例因髋关节骨关节炎行全髋关节置换术的患者中取出股骨头,制备骨水泥样本。制备了以下几组样本。制备了骨水泥样本和 6 周龄旧水泥部分附着在新水泥上的复合材料样本,在制备后 24 小时进行测试,以避免骨衰变。此外,还制备了均匀的水泥样本作为对照(聚合时间 6 周),并制备了表面有和没有锚固钻孔的 2 组水泥-水泥样本,其中旧水泥在制备复合材料样本前聚合 6 周,然后在制备后再聚合 6 周。使用 Zwick-Roell Z020 试验机进行单轴循环拉伸-压缩试验。均匀水泥样本的极限力最高(n = 15;Rm = 3149 N)。复合材料水泥样本(n = 15;Rm = 902 N)的极限力高于骨水泥样本(n = 31;Rm = 284 N;p <0.001)。24 小时聚合期(n = 15;Rm = 902 N)和 6 周聚合期(n = 22;Rm = 890 N;p = 0.93)的复合材料样本之间无显著差异。有钻孔的复合材料水泥样本(n = 16;Rm = 607 N)比无钻孔的样本(n = 22;Rm = 890 N;p <0.001)弱。本研究表明,新旧水泥之间的结合强度强于水泥与骨之间的结合强度。这表明,在进行水泥翻修时,最好保留未从骨上松动的水泥,而不是通过去除旧水泥来牺牲骨量,从而导致较弱的水泥-骨界面。研究结果支持进行水泥-水泥翻修关节置换术。旧水泥帽中的钻孔会降低水泥结合强度,不建议在这种手术中使用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0bbb/7877659/744e3c166e2c/pone.0246740.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验