1,007
Views
12
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

The long-term in vivo behavior of polymethyl methacrylate bone cement in total hip arthroplasty

, , , , , , & show all
Pages 553-558 | Received 01 Feb 2011, Accepted 28 Jun 2011, Published online: 24 Nov 2011
 

Abstract

Background and purpose The long-term success of cemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been well established. Improved outcomes, both radiographically and clinically, have resulted mainly from advances in stem design and improvements in operating techniques. However, there is concern about the durability of bone cement in vivo. We evaluated the physical and chemical properties of CMW1 bone cements retrieved from patients undergoing revision THA.

Methods CMW1 cements were retrieved from 14 patients who underwent acetabular revision because of aseptic loosening. The time in vivo before revision was 7–30 years. The bending properties of the retrieved bone cement were assessed using the three-point bending method. The molecular weight and chemical structure were analyzed by gel permeation chromatography and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. The porosity of the bone cements was evaluated by 3-D microcomputer tomography.

Results The bending strength decreased with increasing time in vivo and depended on the density of the bone cement, which we assume to be determined by the porosity. There was no correlation between molecular weight and time in vivo. The infrared spectra were similar in the retrieved cements and in the control CMW1 cements.

Interpretation Our results indicate that polymer chain scission and significant hydrolysis do not occur in CMW1 cement after implantation in vivo, even in the long term. CMW1 cement was stable through long-term implantation and functional loading.

HO performed the experiments and participated in writing of the manuscript. HA coordinated the study, participated in design of the protocol, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, and participated in writing of the manuscript. MT analyzed the data and participated in writing of the manuscript. TK performed the experiments and analyzed the data. KY analyzed the data. TY participated in design of the protocol. HO participated in design of the protocol and prepared the samples. TN obtained funding and participated in design of the protocol.

No competing interests declared.