Modern Cement Technique and the Survivorship of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Norris, Brent; Lachiewicz, Paul F.

doi:10.1097/00003086-199607000-00014

Cited by 101 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has already been demonstrated that the cementing technique may improve the long-term survival of the cemented glenoid component (Norris and Lachiewicz, 1996). Moreover, in vitro tests have revealed that the thickness of the cement mantle influences the primary stability of cemented glenoid components (Nyffeler et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone–cement interface of the glenoid component: Stress analysis for varying cement thickness

Terrier

Büchler

Farron

2005

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Although shoulder arthroplasty is an accepted treatment for osteoarthritis, loosening of the glenoid component, which mainly occurs at the bone-cement interface, remains a major concern. Presently, the mechanical effect of the cement mantel thickness on the bone-cement interface is still unclear.Methods. Finite element analysis of a prosthetic scapula was used to evaluate the effect of cement thickness on stresses and micromotions at the bone-cement interface. The glenoid component was all-polyethylene, keeled and flat back. Cement mantel thickness was gradually increased from 0.5 to 2.0 mm. Two glenohumeral contact forces were applied: concentric and eccentric. Two extreme cases were considered for the bone-cement interface: bonded and debonded.Findings. Within cement, stress increased as cement thickness decreased, reaching the fatigue limit below 1.0 mm. Bone stress was below its ultimate strength and was minimum between 1.0 and 1.5 mm. Interface stress was close to the interface strength, and also minimum between 1.0 and 1.5 mm. Both the decentring of the load and the debonding of the interface increased the stress.Interpretation. A cement thinning weakens the cement, but also the bone-cement interface, along the back-keel edges. Conversely, a cement thickening rigidifies the cemented implant, consequently increasing interfacial stresses and micromotions. To avoid both excessive cement fatigue and interface failure, an ideal cement thickness has been identified between 1.0 and 1.5 mm.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone–cement interface of the glenoid component: Stress analysis for varying cement thickness

Terrier

Büchler

Farron

2005

Clinical Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, complications do occur such as a high incidence of radiolucent lines (Levine et al, 1997), increased loosening of the glenoid with time (Norris and Lachiewicz, 1996), rotator cuff failure and diminished range of motion, resulting in the need for revision operations (Vassel et al, 1997). These patients pose a challenging dilemma especially when it may be difficult to reconstruct the glenoid as a result of bone loss due to a previously cemented component.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of glenoid fixation for a reversed anatomy fixed-fulcrum shoulder replacement

Ahir

Walker

Squire-Taylor³

et al. 2004

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…"Modern" technique has been shown to improve radiographic results but the exact definition of modern technique remains somewhat unclear. A number of authors including Norris, Mileti and Kasten have all written on the "modern" technique for fixation though there is considerable variation in what that means [49][50][51]. Common elements to modern technique include lavage and drying of the vault and cement pressurization into the glenoid with a syringe [52].…”

Section: Cemented All Poly Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty

Schrumpf

Maak

Hammoud

et al. 2011

Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management of glenohumeral arthrosis with a total shoulder prosthesis is becoming increasingly common. However, failure of the glenoid component remains one of the most common causes for failure. Our understanding of this problem has evolved greatly since the first implants were placed in the 1970's. However glenoid failure remains a challenging problem to address and manage. This article reviews the current knowledge regarding the glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty touching on anatomy, component design, implant fixation, causes of implant failure, management of glenoid failure and alternatives to glenoid replacement.

show abstract

Modern Cement Technique and the Survivorship of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Cited by 101 publications

References 13 publications

Bone–cement interface of the glenoid component: Stress analysis for varying cement thickness

Bone–cement interface of the glenoid component: Stress analysis for varying cement thickness

Analysis of glenoid fixation for a reversed anatomy fixed-fulcrum shoulder replacement

The glenoid in total shoulder arthroplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About