INFLUENCE OF THE BONE CEMENTS AND CEMENTATION TECHNIQUE ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE BIRMINGHAM HIP PROSTHESIS
European Journal of Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 9, Issue 4, 2024
PDF Full Article, DOI: 10.36868/ejmse.2024.09.04.269, pp. 269-280
Niculae VĂLEANU1, Larisa POPESCU1, Aurora ANTONIAC1, Alina ROBU1,*, Dan ANUSCA 2,
1 University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, Faculty of Material Science and Engineering, Department of Materials Science and Physical Metallurgy, 313 Splaiul Independentei Street, 060042, Bucharest, Romania.
2Elias Emergency University Hospital, Department of Dermatology, Bucharest, Romania
* Corresponding author: alinarobu2021@gmail.com
Abstract
This study’s main idea is to explore the interaction between acrylic bone cement and bone tissue in total hip arthroplasty procedures. Acrylic bone cement has been widely used in total hip arthroplasty procedures over the years. The importance of the interaction between cement and bone tissue, as well as the penetration of cement into bone, has been the subject of extensive research. Analyses using SEM and EDAX have examined these aspects in detail, highlighting the importance of uniform cement distribution in strengthening and protecting the implant. Additionally, possible anomalies, such as the formation of voids or fissures in the cement, which can affect the long-term strength and stability of the implant, have been identified. These research findings have made significant contributions to understanding the need for a rigorous cement application technique to avoid such problems and ensure the success of the intervention. Furthermore, a detailed investigation revealed a specific case where acrylic bone cement was applied in an excessively thick layer, leading to significant penetration into the bone tissue. The lack of uniformity and reduced viscosity of the cement exacerbated this issue, emphasizing the need for careful cement application to ensure the stability and durability of the implant.
Keywords: Acrylic bone cement, Cement-bone interface, BHR Prostheses, SEM analysis.
References:
[1] Moazen M, Jones AC, Jin J, Wilcox RK, Tsiridis E., Periprosthetic fracture fixation of the femur following total hip arthroplasty: A review of biomechanical testing., Clin Biomech 2011; 26:13–22.
[2] Denis MG, Simon JA, Kummer FJ, Koval KJ, DiCesare PE., Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures occurring at the tip of the stem. a biomechanical study of 5 techniques., J Arthroplasty 2000;15(4):523–8.
[3] Zdero R, Walker R, Waddell JP, Schemitsch EH., Biomechanical evaluation of periprosthetic femoral fracture fixation., J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90-A:1068–1077.
[4] Beltran MJ, Collinge CA, Gardner MJ., Stress modulation of fracture fixation implants., J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24:711–719.
[5] Gardner MP, Chong AC, Pollock AG, et al. Mechanical evaluation of large-size fourth-generation composite femur and tibia models. Ann Biomed Eng 2010;38(3):613.
[6] Ehlinger M, Adam P, Di Marco A, et al. Periprosthetic femoral fractures treated by locked plating: feasibility assessment of the mini-invasive surgical option. A prospective series of 36 fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2011;97(6):622.
[7] A Robu, A Antoniac, R Ciocoiu, E Grosu, JV Rau, M Fosca, II Krasnyuk Jr, Effect of the Antimicrobial Agents Peppermint Essential Oil and Silver Nanoparticles on Bone Cement Properties, Biomimetics, 2022, 7 (3),137.
[8] Ene R., Panti Z., Nica M., Pleniceanu M., Ene P., Cîrstoiu M., Trante O., Bita A.I., Antoniac A., Cirstoiu C., Influence of Antibiotics Addition in Bone Cements for Hip Arthroplasty on their Mechanical Properties: Clinical Perspective and In Vitro Tests, Key Engineering Materials, 695, 2016, 123-127
[9] M Niculescu, D Laptoiu, F Miculescu, I Antoniac, Biomaterials view on the complications associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty, Medicine, 2017, 1114, 247-252.
[10] Robu A., Antoniac A., Grosu E., Vasile E., Raiciu A.D., Iordache F., Antoniac V.I., Rau J.V., Yankova V.G., Ditu L.M., Saceleanu V., Additives Imparting Antimicrobial Properties to Acrylic Bone Cements, Materials 2021, 14(22), 7031.
[11] A Robu, R Ciocoiu, A Antoniac, I Antoniac, AD Raiciu, H Dura, N Forna, Bone cements used for hip prosthesis fixation: The influence of the handling procedures on functional properties observed during in vitro study, Materials, 2022, 15 (9), 2967.
[12] Joshi, R. P., Eftekhar, N. S., McMahon, D. J., & Nercessian, O. A. (1998). Osteolysis after Charnley primary low-friction arthroplasty. A comparison of two matched paired groups. The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume, 80(4), 585–590.
[13] Choi JK, Gardner TR, Yoon E, et al. The effect of fixation technique on the stiffness of comminuted Vancouver B1 periprosthetic femur fractures., J Arthroplasty 2010;25(6 Suppl):124
[14] Lever JP, Zdero R, Nousiainen MT, et al. The biomechanical analysis of three plating fixation systems for periprosthetic femoral fracture near the tip of a total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg Res 2010; 5:45.
[15] Konstantinidis L, Hauschild O, Beckmann NA, et al. Treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures with two different minimal invasive angle-stable plates: biomechanical comparison studies on cadaveric bones. Injury 2010;41(12):1256.
[16] Wilson D, Frei H, Masri BA, et al. A biomechanical study comparing cortical onlay allograft struts and plates in the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures. Clin Biomech 2005;20(1):70.
[17] Fulkerson E, Koval K, Preston CF, et al. Fixation of periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures associated with cemented femoral stems: a biomechanical comparison of locked plating and conventional cable plates. J Orthop Trauma 2006;20(2):89
[18] Lindhal H. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury 2007; 38:651.
[19] Rayan F, Dodd M, Haddad FS., European validation of the Vancouver classification of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures., J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90:1576.
[20] Judas F, Saavedra MJ, Mendes AF. Cortical strut allografting in reconstructive orthopaedic surgery. Acta Reumatol Port 2011;36(1):24–8.
[21] Wang JW, Wang CJ. Periprosthetic fracture of the femur after hip arthroplasty: the clinical outcome using cortical strut allografts. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2000; 8:27–31.
[22] Haddad FS, Duncan CP, Berry DJ. Periprosthetic femoral fractures around wellfixed implants: use of cortical onlay allografts with or without a plate. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A (6):945–50.
[23] Khashan M, Amar E, Drexler M. Superior outcome of strut allograft-augmented plate fixation for the treatment of periprosthetic fractures around a stable femoral stem., Injury 2013;44(11):1556–60.
[24] Ricci WM, Bolhofner BR, Loftus T. Indirect reduction and plate fixation, without grafting, for periprosthetic femoral shaft fractures about a stable intramedullary implant. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87-A (10):2240–5.
[25] Moore RE, Baldwin K,Austin MS, Mehta S. A systematic review of open reduction and internal fixation of periprosthetic femur fractures with or without allograft strut, cerclage, and locked plates. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29:872–6.
[26] I Antoniac, M Negrusoiu, M Mardare, C Socoliuc, A Zazgyva, M Niculescu, Adverse local tissue reaction after 2 revision hip replacements for ceramic liner fracture: A case report, Medicine, 2017, 96 (19), e6687.
[27] Antoniac I.V., Stoia D.I., Ghiban B., Tecu C., Miculescu F., Vigaru C., Saceleanu V., Failure Analysis of a Humeral Shaft Locking Compression Plate—Surface Investigation and Simulation by Finite Element Method, Materials 2019, 12(7), 1128.
[28] Paltanea G., Manescu V. (Paltanea), Antoniac I., Antoniac A., Nemoianu I.V., Robu A., Dura H., A Review of Biomimetic and Biodegradable Magnetic Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering and Oncology, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(5), 4312.
