The Reaction of Bone to Bone Cement in Animals and Humans

  • L. Linder


John Charnley revolutionised orthopaedic surgery and it is impossible to discuss the reaction to bone cement without this historical perspective, because our view has changed over the years. In the 1960s and early 1970s, what we discussed was whether a 2-mm radiolucency or a 1-mm radiolucency was acceptable and whether it was the normal response of bone to bone cement. If we looked at the interfaces histologically in those years, we invariably found a thick fibrous membrane between the bone and the bone cement. Why was the fibrous tissue there? Was it because of the bone cement as such, or the wear of the polyethylene socket? Was it due to metal corrosion, or the fragmentation of the bone cement surface? All these phenomena could be traced in the membrane, which was very bewildering (Mirra et al. 1976).


Titanium Polyethylene Barium 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Further Reading

  1. Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Linder L, Hansson H-A (1983) Ultra-structural aspects of the interface between bone and cement in man. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 65:646–649Google Scholar
  3. Linder L, Carlsson A (1986) The bone—cement interface in hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand 57:495–500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Linder L, Ivarsson B (1986) Evaluation of the bio-compatibility of polymers implanted into bone using titanium mosaic on bone cement. Biomaterials 7:17–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Mirra JM, Amstutz HC, Matos M, Gold R (1976) The pathology of the joint tissues and its clinical relevance in prosthesis failure. Clin Orthop 117:221–240PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Linder

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations