These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An experimental comparison of different devices for pulsatile high-pressure lavage and their relevance to cement intrusion into cancellous bone.
    Author: Kalteis T, Pförringer D, Herold T, Handel M, Renkawitz T, Plitz W.
    Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg; 2007 Dec; 127(10):873-7. PubMed ID: 17763858.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Some of the systems marketed for pulsatile high-pressure lavage are clearly different in their mechanical pulse characteristics. To take the matter further we set up an experimental in vitro model to determine whether these different lavage systems might produce different cementation results because of their differing pulse characteristics, and whether the systems differed significantly in terms of cement depth penetration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 femoral heads were obtained at operation from patients who had undergone endoprosthetic hip replacement. The specimens were subjected to manual rinsing or semiautomatic cleansing procedures with five different pulsatile lavage devices. After the cleansing procedures, polymethylmetacrylate bone cement was intruded into the cancellous bone under standardised conditions. Determination of cement penetration was done by computed tomography using an image processing software. RESULTS: Irrespective of the nature of the lavage system tested, superficial cement penetration, both up to 2 mm and up to 3 mm, was significantly better after pulsatile high-pressure lavage than it was after manual rinsing of the specimens with a bladder syringe (P < 0.001 in each case). Whereas our experimental model did not show any significant differences between the lavage systems as regards the cementation results to a depth of up to 2 mm (P = 0.996), there were significant differences at a target depth of 3 mm (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: As compared with manual rinsing, pulsatile high-pressure lavage in vitro makes highly significant improvements in cement penetration into cancellous bone and should be regarded as an indispensable component of modern cementation techniques for endoprosthetic surgery. Up to the present we have not been able to ascertain what influence the different pulse characteristics of a pulsatile lavage system may have on the intended cementation result, whether it is impact force, pulse shape, pulse duration, flow rate or frequency. Appropriate investigations will be necessary.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]