Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2026
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF FIRST- AND ADAPTED SECOND-GENERATION BONE CEMENTATION IN POST-CURETTAGE BONE DEFECT FILLING IN AN ANIMAL MODEL.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cruz Mateus de Vita Mendes, Gava Nelson Fabrício, da Rocha Vitor Freire, Miyase Cátia Isumi, Engel Edgard Eduard, Dos Santos Mariana Avelino
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Bone cementation is fundamental for orthopedic stability, and different techniques have been proposed to optimize the bone-cement interface.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether adapted second-generation cementation improves osteointegration compared with the first-generation technique.
METHODS: Bone defects created in the femora and tibiae of goats were filled with polymethylmethacrylate using either the first-generation technique (Group 1) or an adaptation of the second-generation technique (Group 2). Cementation quality and the bone-cement interface were assessed by radiography, CT, and photographic analysis, evaluated by orthopedic examiners. Statistical analyses employed the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests.
RESULTS: No statistical differences were observed between the groups regarding cementation quality (radiography and CT) or osteointegration (photographic analysis) (p > 0.05). On CT, the mean number of bubbles was higher in the second-generation (6.05 vs. 3.95), whereas the proportion of samples with ≥5 bubbles was higher in the first-generation (50% vs. 30%). Photographic analysis showed that the second-generation group had a higher mean number of interdigitations (2.4 vs. 1.6) and a greater frequency of rough interfaces (50% vs. 25%). However, the first-generation group presented greater interdigitation depth (0.40 mm vs. 0.35 mm).
CONCLUSION: Adapted second-generation cementation showed no clear advantage over the first-generation technique. Level of evidence II; Investigation of treatment outcomes in an animal model.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether adapted second-generation cementation improves osteointegration compared with the first-generation technique.
METHODS: Bone defects created in the femora and tibiae of goats were filled with polymethylmethacrylate using either the first-generation technique (Group 1) or an adaptation of the second-generation technique (Group 2). Cementation quality and the bone-cement interface were assessed by radiography, CT, and photographic analysis, evaluated by orthopedic examiners. Statistical analyses employed the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests.
RESULTS: No statistical differences were observed between the groups regarding cementation quality (radiography and CT) or osteointegration (photographic analysis) (p > 0.05). On CT, the mean number of bubbles was higher in the second-generation (6.05 vs. 3.95), whereas the proportion of samples with ≥5 bubbles was higher in the first-generation (50% vs. 30%). Photographic analysis showed that the second-generation group had a higher mean number of interdigitations (2.4 vs. 1.6) and a greater frequency of rough interfaces (50% vs. 25%). However, the first-generation group presented greater interdigitation depth (0.40 mm vs. 0.35 mm).
CONCLUSION: Adapted second-generation cementation showed no clear advantage over the first-generation technique. Level of evidence II; Investigation of treatment outcomes in an animal model.