FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2425795792> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2425795792 endingPage "6" @default.
• W2425795792 startingPage "S33" @default.
• W2425795792 abstract "Glenoid loosening is one of the most common complications of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). Numerous glenoid pegged designs exist within the market place; however, little effort has been made to optimize peg geometry, and as a result, there is no consensus regarding the superiority of one design over another. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of peg design on the fixation strength by comparing the force and displacement associated with five different geometries of cemented glenoid components when each is axially displaced from two different densities of polyurethane bone substitute substrates.An axial pull-out test was conducted on five different cemented peg geometries in both low- and high- density polyurethane bone-substitute blocks. All substrates were prepared utilizing a drill, which created a 7.3 mm diameter hole to a depth of 26.8 mm. Cemex ® brand bone cement was prepared and used to cement all pegs. After cementation of each peg, an electromechanical load frame applied a linear ramp displacement of 10 mm/minute axially to each peg while the polyurethane block was fully con strained. Load and displacement of each peg was sampled at 100 Hz until failure and axial distraction of each peg where the peak pull-out force and associated displacement were recorded. The average load to failure and associated displacement for each peg geometry were compared utilizing the Student's t-test where a p-value < 0.05 determined significance.Cemented peg design #3 was associated with the greatest axial load to failure (675.3 N ± 18.8 N in low density and 707.3 N ± 11.7 N in high density) for both densities of bone-substitute blocks. Peg designs #5 and #2 were associated with the next highest axial loads to failure in both low and high density blocks. Finally, peg designs #1 and #4 were associated with the lowest axial loads to failure in both low and high density blocks. Only design #3 had a statistically significant difference between peak pull-out forces between the low- and high-density bone substitute blocks, as compared to all other designs.The results of this study demonstrate that glenoid peg geometry can significantly influence the resistance to axial distraction where the continuous threaded geometry exemplified by peg design #3 demonstrated significantly superior cemented fixation relative to the other peg designs. It can be concluded that overall macrostructure and design of the peg itself plays a key role in pull-out force; however, performance in a clinical setting is required to confirm these biomechanical results." @default.
• W2425795792 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2425795792 creator A5006604151 @default.
• W2425795792 creator A5016300565 @default.
• W2425795792 creator A5042501331 @default.
• W2425795792 creator A5071227746 @default.
• W2425795792 date "2015-12-01" @default.
• W2425795792 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2425795792 title "Optimization of Cemented Glenoid Peg Geometry. A Comparison of Resistance to Axial Distraction." @default.
• W2425795792 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26631193" @default.
• W2425795792 hasPublicationYear "2015" @default.
• W2425795792 type Work @default.
• W2425795792 sameAs 2425795792 @default.
• W2425795792 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2425795792 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2425795792 hasAuthorship W2425795792A5006604151 @default.
• W2425795792 hasAuthorship W2425795792A5016300565 @default.
• W2425795792 hasAuthorship W2425795792A5042501331 @default.
• W2425795792 hasAuthorship W2425795792A5071227746 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C107551265 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C136229726 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C523993062 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C54400483 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConcept C94556721 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C10138342 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C107551265 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C136229726 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C15744967 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C159985019 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C162324750 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C192562407 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C29694066 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C523993062 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C542102704 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C54400483 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C71924100 @default.
• W2425795792 hasConceptScore W2425795792C94556721 @default.
• W2425795792 hasLocation W24257957921 @default.
• W2425795792 hasOpenAccess W2425795792 @default.
• W2425795792 hasPrimaryLocation W24257957921 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W1978212396 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W2006629220 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W2017984967 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W2023566016 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W2050740569 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W2749043692 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W2765991590 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W2944045227 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W3169099752 @default.
• W2425795792 hasRelatedWork W4232917666 @default.
• W2425795792 hasVolume "73 Suppl 1" @default.
• W2425795792 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2425795792 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2425795792 magId "2425795792" @default.
• W2425795792 workType "article" @default.