Key result
Weephole and modified weephole techniques significantly increased cement mantle volume around individual pegs (p=0.023 and p=0.007) and decreased cement behind the glenoid component (p=0.003) vs SP.
Why the study?
Do weephole (WH) or modified weephole (MWH) techniques improve cement mantle volume compared to standard syringe pressurization in glenoid component cementation?
Do weephole (WH) or modified weephole (MWH) techniques improve cement mantle volume compared to standard syringe pressurization in glenoid component cementation?
Both weephole and modified weephole techniques increase cement mantle volume around individual pegs and decrease the amount of glenoid face cement compared to conventional syringe pressurization in a cadaveric model.
Should not yet change glenoid cementation practice; leaves open clinical translation of improved mantle volume.
Various strategies have been described to improve glenoid component cementation technique in shoulder arthroplasty, such as the "weephole" technique (WH), which is thought to allow for improved cement mantles by suction venting the glenoid vault through the coracoid. The purpose of this study was to compare the cement mantle created using standard syringe pressurization (SP) to WH or a new, modified weephole technique (MWH), not requiring specific instrumentation of the coracoid medullary canal. Fourteen cadaveric scapulae underwent preparation of the glenoid to allow for implantation of glenoid components. Component fixation was achieved using SP, WH, or MWH. The volumes of cement surrounding each individual peg on the component, of the cement mantle between the back of the glenoid, and of the reamed glenoid face were quantified using micro-CT. Compared to SP, significantly larger cement mantles were observed around all pegs with both the WH (p=0.023) and MWH (p=0.007). Similarly, both the WH and MWH techniques demonstrated significantly decreased cement behind the glenoid component (p=0.003) compared to SP, with no significant difference between the WH and the MWH techniques. Both WH and MWH techniques increase cement mantle volume around individual pegs and decrease the amount of glenoid face cement compared to conventional SP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hasan et al. (2009) studied shoulder arthroplasty (n=14). Weephole (WH) and modified weephole (MWH) techniques vs. Standard syringe pressurization (SP) was evaluated on Cement mantle volume around individual pegs (p=0.023 (WH), 0.007 (MWH)). Weephole and modified weephole techniques significantly increased cement mantle volume around individual pegs (p=0.023 and p=0.007) and decreased cement behind the glenoid component (p=0.003) vs SP.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: