2001
DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200101000-00034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Clinical Significance of Vacuum Mixing Bone Cement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
14
0
5

Year Published

2003
2003
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
14
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…It is generally accepted that long term durability of cemented THR requires meticulous attention to three elements and two interfaces, which are femoral stem, Great effort has been made to investigate the factors influencing the bond strength at the stem-cement interface, such as increasing stem surface roughness (Chen et al, 1998;Lennon et al, 2003;Ohashi et al, 1998), pre-coating the stem (Fischer et al, 2001;Morita et al, 1997) and utilising "modern cementing techniques" (Geiger et al, 2001;Mulroy Jr. and Harris, 1990). The optimum surface finish of the femoral stem has been the focus of controversy for a long time, mainly concentrating on whether matt stems could accomplish permanent fixation during their in vivo service (Alfaro-Adrian et al, 2001;Shen, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is generally accepted that long term durability of cemented THR requires meticulous attention to three elements and two interfaces, which are femoral stem, Great effort has been made to investigate the factors influencing the bond strength at the stem-cement interface, such as increasing stem surface roughness (Chen et al, 1998;Lennon et al, 2003;Ohashi et al, 1998), pre-coating the stem (Fischer et al, 2001;Morita et al, 1997) and utilising "modern cementing techniques" (Geiger et al, 2001;Mulroy Jr. and Harris, 1990). The optimum surface finish of the femoral stem has been the focus of controversy for a long time, mainly concentrating on whether matt stems could accomplish permanent fixation during their in vivo service (Alfaro-Adrian et al, 2001;Shen, 1998).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Interfacial porosity has several characteristics: It is substantially different from porosity within the cement mantle; it is not reduced by vacuum mixing or centrifugation; it appears and accumulates at the stem-cement interface, resulting in decreased contact area between stem and cement mantle; it initiates crack formation from the interface resulting in interface debonding and cement mantle failure; it is developed by polymerization shrinkage of bone cement, while porosity within the cement mantle originates from entrapped air bubbles. [7][8][9][10][11] The only technique reported in the literature to reduce the interfacial porosity is stem preheating. This was originally introduced by Dall et al 12 to shorten polymerization time and found by Bishop et al 8 to reduce interfacial porosity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vacuum mixing of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement is advocated to reduce voids and porosity within the cement mantle, which are suspected to contribute to crack development and prosthesis failure or loosening (Lidgren et al 1987, Wixson et al 1987, Geiger et al 2001. The vacuum mixing devices are connected to specific suction units and are thus also expected to minimise exposure to methylmethacrylate (MMA) monomer fumes evaporating during the mixing procedure (Darre et al 1988, Bettencourt et al 2001.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%