In vitro influence of stem surface finish and mantle conformity on pressure generation in cemented hip arthroplasty

Figures & data

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the mantle void profile created by the formers, demonstrating the increased rotational movement and unchanged axial movement of the stem.

Axial micromotion (in mm) and torsional micromotion (in degrees) of rough and polished stems in the 2- and 5-degree artificially worn mantles

	2-degree mantles				5-degree mantles
Surface finish	Polished		Rough		Polished		Rough
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Axial (mm)	0.35	< 0.01	0.37	< 0.01	0.38	0.04	0.35	0.02
Rotational (degrees)	2.12	0.54	1.42	0.39	4.84	0.47	3.17	0.89

SD: standard deviation.

Figure 2. ΔPmax values (in Pa) recorded at each transducer site (see insert) for both rough and polished stems under combined physiological loading, in both the 2-degree and 5-degree mantles.

Figure 3. ΔPmax values (in Pa) for rough and polished stems within artificially created 2-degree mantles at each pressure transducer site (see insert). The ΔPmax values were recorded under 3 different loading regimens: isolated axial loading, isolated torsional loading, and combined physiological loading.